Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed

[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.

To get the best out of the sensor you best shoot ETTR (expose to the right).
Underexposure will only result in losing tonal values.

Ah.. you're not seeing what I'm getting at.

Lets say

Readout Noise = 40 electrons at 100ISO and 20electrons at 200ISO and 10electrons at 400ISO, 7electrons at 800ISO and 6electrons at 1600ISO... (low ISO being ADC dynamic range limited, high ISO being sensor limited)

not dissimilar to my 30D.

The SNR for the same amount of light is almost identical at 800ISO as it is at 1600ISO.. but 800ISO gives you more headroom... this is what I do for low light "people" photography where playing around isn't possible.

now if you're ETTRing then yup that may be optimal.. but that isn't exactly what I'm talking about... although it's all related.

Point is on the Nikon 800/600 series.. the readout noise at ISO100 is going to be pretty much identical to ISO1600 etc. because the readout amplifiers/ADC of the camera has massive dynamic range... the SNR, and so on is all dependant on the amount of light more or less regardless of ISO... might as well give maximum dynamic range (ISO100) and then just grab as much light as the situation allows, only limiting the light once you hit the ADCs rail.

Noise is not the problem from 100 to 400 ISO but when you loose 50% of your tonal values it is.

And how do you lose 50% of your tonal values when the SNR per colour channel is more or less identical?

Because that´s how digital image files work.

When you underexpose and have all your data sitting at the left side of your histogram, you will have less tonal values.

http://digital-photography-school.com/exposing-to-the-right/

Sorry to break it to you.. but if your noise covers the bottom couple of bits of the ADC (and readout noise will be present in the bright bits too) then simply throwing away more and more bits of your ADC converting a very noisy signal does not improve the SNR.

IMPORTANT: SNR isn't just Bight/Dark ratio.. it's also manifest in Bright/"noise texture in the bright bit" ratio.

I think you're aware of this but aren't sure how to model it?..

If you have a Bright bit that is say 200electrons, and noise of 10 electrons you will see a "texture" in the bright area at about 1/20th of the brightness.. devoting more and more ADC bits to that texture won't make the picture any better.

Again you don´t seem to get it. So try it yourself.

Underexposure by two Stops to get a small noise advantage is not a good thing to do.

 

[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.

To get the best out of the sensor you best shoot ETTR (expose to the right).
Underexposure will only result in losing tonal values.

Ah.. you're not seeing what I'm getting at.

Lets say

Readout Noise = 40 electrons at 100ISO and 20electrons at 200ISO and 10electrons at 400ISO, 7electrons at 800ISO and 6electrons at 1600ISO... (low ISO being ADC dynamic range limited, high ISO being sensor limited)

not dissimilar to my 30D.

The SNR for the same amount of light is almost identical at 800ISO as it is at 1600ISO.. but 800ISO gives you more headroom... this is what I do for low light "people" photography where playing around isn't possible.

now if you're ETTRing then yup that may be optimal.. but that isn't exactly what I'm talking about... although it's all related.

Point is on the Nikon 800/600 series.. the readout noise at ISO100 is going to be pretty much identical to ISO1600 etc. because the readout amplifiers/ADC of the camera has massive dynamic range... the SNR, and so on is all dependant on the amount of light more or less regardless of ISO... might as well give maximum dynamic range (ISO100) and then just grab as much light as the situation allows, only limiting the light once you hit the ADCs rail.

Noise is not the problem from 100 to 400 ISO but when you loose 50% of your tonal values it is.

And how do you lose 50% of your tonal values when the SNR per colour channel is more or less identical?

Because that´s how digital image files work.

When you underexpose and have all your data sitting at the left side of your histogram, you will have less tonal values.

http://digital-photography-school.com/exposing-to-the-right/

Sorry to break it to you.. but if your noise covers the bottom couple of bits of the ADC (and readout noise will be present in the bright bits too) then simply throwing away more and more bits of your ADC converting a very noisy signal does not improve the SNR.

IMPORTANT: SNR isn't just Bight/Dark ratio.. it's also manifest in Bright/"noise texture in the bright bit" ratio.

I think you're aware of this but aren't sure how to model it?..

If you have a Bright bit that is say 200electrons, and noise of 10 electrons you will see a "texture" in the bright area at about 1/20th of the brightness.. devoting more and more ADC bits to that texture won't make the picture any better.

Again you don´t seem to get it. So try it yourself.

Underexposure by two Stops to get a small noise advantage is not a good thing to do.

You just proved you missed something

I DON'T get a noise advantage... neither do I get a noise disadvantage

What I do get is a dynamic range advantage.

 

[EOS AE1]

If ETTR is not possible, it is still important to maximize exposure, i.e., to push the histogram as far to the right as possible at base ISO even if not to the right-hand edge. Let me emphasize that maximizing exposure means finding an acceptable combination of shutter speed and f-ratio that gives the largest possible exposure, and it does not involve the use of ISO, which is not part of exposure. For these purposes, ISO remains at its base value. This allows capturing the greatest possible signal with least relative noise and creates the best foundation for the final image. If this maximal exposure is not ETTR, then brightening can be added to achieve an image of the desired brightness. But first comes the setting of exposure, then comes the brightening. Now the question arises: where should this brightening be done: using in-camera ISO or during raw processing or both?

The answer to this question depends on the "ISO-nature" of the camera. With an ISO-invariant camera (one whose read noise does not change with the camera's ISO setting), one could do either (brighten in-camera or during raw processing), but there are advantages to shooting dark (letting your image remain unbrightened) at the base ISO and brightening during raw processing. This will typically result in a final image with better IQ and less chance of clipped highlights. With an ISO-variant camera (one whose read noise decreases with increased ISO), the benefit is in favor of brightening with added in-camera ISO, which will typically result in less read noise than shooting darker and pushing in raw processing. Some cameras are partly-ISO-invariant, becoming ISO-invariant only after reaching a given ISO level, say 800 or 1600. Here there are benefits from increasing ISO in-camera, if needed, up to this level and then effecting any further brightening, if required, during raw processing. More on this topic can be found in Note 5 on page 2 of Exposure vs. Brightening and you can learn more about the ISO-nature of your camera from sensorgen.info.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6641165460/ettr-exposed

so i never underexpose. i always shoot ETTR.
and from my own experience the results are better then having the data sitting on the left side of the histogram.

with a D800 as, as you say ISO invariant camera, i would then underexpose instead of raising ISO and later brighten in LR.

but you say it exactly the other way around.. or im just not getting it today (happens).

 

[heptagon]

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.

You have two main sources of noise at low ISO:
1) Quantum noise
2) Readout noise

Quantum noise is due to the fact that photons behave like particles and if you on average expect 10000 photons in a pixel in reality you get sometimes more and sometimes less leading to a Poisson distribution around that average value. The quatum noise is the square root of the number of photons e.g. 100 for 10000 photons and 10 for 100 photons.

The readout noise is various electronic noise and depends on the amplification factor and other interference. With the new Sony sensors the readout noise is virtually the same on ISO 100 to ISO 6400 e.g. 5 electrons. With the canon sensors the readout noise is better for high ISO e.g. 3 electrons but worse at low ISO e.g. 30 electrons at ISO 100.

If you look at a bright pixel you get 10000 electrons from the photons +-100 electrons due to Poisson statistics (even a perfect sensor will get that). The S/N ratio is 100.

If you look at a dark pixel you get 100 electrons from photons and +-10 electrons from Poisson statistics. The S/N ratio is 10.

Now factor in the read noise.
- Bright pixel:
-- Canon: 100 and 30 => 104 total, S/N 96
-- Nikon: 100 and 5 => 100 total, S/N 100
- Not much difference.

- Dark pixel:
-- Canon: 10 and 30 => 32 total, S/N 3.1
-- Nikon: 10 and 5 =>11 total, S/N 9.1
- Almost a factor of 3!

If you do the same calculation at high ISO, the Canon sensor gets a little advantage.


From this we can conclude that BRIGHT pixels have the SAME QUALITY with a Canon and a Sony sensor.
But DARK pixels suffer from readout noise and here the Sony sensor is much better.

So if you do not underexpose or lift the shadows in your pictures, you will be OK with current Canon sensors.


EDIT: Use RMS for noise addition.

 

[rfdesigner]

If ETTR is not possible, it is still important to maximize exposure, i.e., to push the histogram as far to the right as possible at base ISO even if not to the right-hand edge. Let me emphasize that maximizing exposure means finding an acceptable combination of shutter speed and f-ratio that gives the largest possible exposure, and it does not involve the use of ISO, which is not part of exposure. For these purposes, ISO remains at its base value. This allows capturing the greatest possible signal with least relative noise and creates the best foundation for the final image. If this maximal exposure is not ETTR, then brightening can be added to achieve an image of the desired brightness. But first comes the setting of exposure, then comes the brightening. Now the question arises: where should this brightening be done: using in-camera ISO or during raw processing or both?

The answer to this question depends on the "ISO-nature" of the camera. With an ISO-invariant camera (one whose read noise does not change with the camera's ISO setting), one could do either (brighten in-camera or during raw processing), but there are advantages to shooting dark (letting your image remain unbrightened) at the base ISO and brightening during raw processing. This will typically result in a final image with better IQ and less chance of clipped highlights. With an ISO-variant camera (one whose read noise decreases with increased ISO), the benefit is in favor of brightening with added in-camera ISO, which will typically result in less read noise than shooting darker and pushing in raw processing. Some cameras are partly-ISO-invariant, becoming ISO-invariant only after reaching a given ISO level, say 800 or 1600. Here there are benefits from increasing ISO in-camera, if needed, up to this level and then effecting any further brightening, if required, during raw processing. More on this topic can be found in Note 5 on page 2 of Exposure vs. Brightening and you can learn more about the ISO-nature of your camera from sensorgen.info.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6641165460/ettr-exposed

so i never underexpose. i always shoot ETTR.
and from my own experience the results are better then having the data sitting on the left side of the histogram.

I'm not disagreeing with the above. ETTR will always be optimal where the noise is also fully captured, the point of ETTR is to reduce sensitivity to EXACTLY the point where you don't blow the image. In dynamic situations (where the 7DII is very likely to be used) ETTR probably won't be an option (unless by some miracle Canon have implemented this as an option within the evaluative metering mode)

The situation I was pointing out was:

You are at the limit of the light that you have.. You can't open the lens any more, you can't reduce the speed any more, it's better to stop at 800ISO than just keep reaching for more and more ISO... what you are saying is you can reach up to the point where you don't quite blow the image.. true.. but the benefit is relatively limited and the difference between losing a tiny bit of SNR or clipping, then it's worth sacrificing the SNR fractionally.

So.. ETTR for still situations (been there done that, agree it works)
Stop at ISO800 for dynamic and just under expose where you would otherwise reach for more ISO.

 

[EOS AE1]

If ETTR is not possible, it is still important to maximize exposure, i.e., to push the histogram as far to the right as possible at base ISO even if not to the right-hand edge. Let me emphasize that maximizing exposure means finding an acceptable combination of shutter speed and f-ratio that gives the largest possible exposure, and it does not involve the use of ISO, which is not part of exposure. For these purposes, ISO remains at its base value. This allows capturing the greatest possible signal with least relative noise and creates the best foundation for the final image. If this maximal exposure is not ETTR, then brightening can be added to achieve an image of the desired brightness. But first comes the setting of exposure, then comes the brightening. Now the question arises: where should this brightening be done: using in-camera ISO or during raw processing or both?

The answer to this question depends on the "ISO-nature" of the camera. With an ISO-invariant camera (one whose read noise does not change with the camera's ISO setting), one could do either (brighten in-camera or during raw processing), but there are advantages to shooting dark (letting your image remain unbrightened) at the base ISO and brightening during raw processing. This will typically result in a final image with better IQ and less chance of clipped highlights. With an ISO-variant camera (one whose read noise decreases with increased ISO), the benefit is in favor of brightening with added in-camera ISO, which will typically result in less read noise than shooting darker and pushing in raw processing. Some cameras are partly-ISO-invariant, becoming ISO-invariant only after reaching a given ISO level, say 800 or 1600. Here there are benefits from increasing ISO in-camera, if needed, up to this level and then effecting any further brightening, if required, during raw processing. More on this topic can be found in Note 5 on page 2 of Exposure vs. Brightening and you can learn more about the ISO-nature of your camera from sensorgen.info.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6641165460/ettr-exposed

so i never underexpose. i always shoot ETTR.
and from my own experience the results are better then having the data sitting on the left side of the histogram.

I'm not disagreeing with the above. ETTR will always be optimal where the noise is also fully captured, the point of ETTR is to reduce sensitivity to EXACTLY the point where you don't blow the image. In dynamic situations (where the 7DII is very likely to be used) ETTR probably won't be an option (unless by some miracle Canon have implemented this as an option within the evaluative metering mode)

The situation I was pointing out was:

You are at the limit of the light that you have.. You can't open the lens any more, you can't reduce the speed any more, it's better to stop at 800ISO than just keep reaching for more and more ISO... what you are saying is you can reach up to the point where you don't quite blow the image.. true.. but the benefit is relatively limited and the difference between losing a tiny bit of SNR or clipping, then it's worth sacrificing the SNR fractionally.

So.. ETTR for still situations (been there done that, agree it works)
Stop at ISO800 for dynamic and just under expose where you would otherwise reach for more ISO.

well what you said is "shoot at base iso 100 and underexpose... fix later in RAW processor".

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.

 

[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.

You have two main sources of noise at low ISO:
1) Quantum noise
2) Readout noise

Quantum noise is due to the fact that photons behave like particles and if you on average expect 10000 photons in a pixel in reality you get sometimes more and sometimes less leading to a Poisson distribution around that average value. The quatum noise is the square root of the number of photons e.g. 100 for 10000 photons and 10 for 100 photons.

The readout noise is various electronic noise and depends on the amplification factor and other interference. With the new Sony sensors the readout noise is virtually the same on ISO 100 to ISO 6400 e.g. 5 electrons. With the canon sensors the readout noise is better for high ISO e.g. 3 electrons but worse at low ISO e.g. 30 electrons at ISO 100.

If you look at a bright pixel you get 10000 electrons from the photons +-100 electrons due to Poisson statistics (even a perfect sensor will get that). The S/N ratio is 100.

If you look at a dark pixel you get 100 electrons from photons and +-10 electrons from Poisson statistics. The S/N ratio is 10.

Now factor in the read noise.
- Bright pixel:
-- Canon: 100+30, S/N 77
-- Nikon: 100+5, S/N 95
- Not much difference.

- Dark pixel:
-- Canon: 10+30, S/N 2.5
-- Nikon: 10+5, S/N 6.7
- Almost a factor of 3!

If you do the same calculation at high ISO, the Canon sensor gets a little advantage.


From this we can conclude that BRIGHT pixels have the SAME QUALITY with a Canon and a Sony sensor.
But DARK pixels suffer from readout noise and here the Sony sensor is much better.

So if you do not underexpose or lift the shadows in your pictures, you will be OK with current Canon sensors.

Oh boy....


I do this stuff every day for work.

Yes poisson noise is also present, but as the two situations I'm comparing here have the same light levels, the poissn noise is identical, so we can drop it out of the equations.

Also you don't just add the noise. it's an RMS.. (in volts) so that changes the maths a little, Sqrt(Noise A+ Noise B)

 

[rfdesigner]

So.. ETTR for still situations (been there done that, agree it works)
Stop at ISO800 for dynamic and just under expose where you would otherwise reach for more ISO.

well what you said is "shoot at base iso 100 and underexpose... fix later in RAW".

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.

[/quote]

That was in reference to the Nikon D800/600 which have enough dynamic range in their amplifiers and ADC to get sensor limited readout noise at ISO100. On Canon the readout noise more or less stops falling at ISO800..

 

[EOS AE1]

Yes poisson noise is also present, but as the two situations I'm comparing here have the same light levels, the poissn noise is identical, so we can drop it out of the equations.

he is comparing sensor behavior. the light level IS the same for both.

it´s the difference between an ISO variant vs. invariant sensor.

 

[heptagon]

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.

You have two main sources of noise at low ISO:
1) Quantum noise
2) Readout noise

Quantum noise is due to the fact that photons behave like particles and if you on average expect 10000 photons in a pixel in reality you get sometimes more and sometimes less leading to a Poisson distribution around that average value. The quatum noise is the square root of the number of photons e.g. 100 for 10000 photons and 10 for 100 photons.

The readout noise is various electronic noise and depends on the amplification factor and other interference. With the new Sony sensors the readout noise is virtually the same on ISO 100 to ISO 6400 e.g. 5 electrons. With the canon sensors the readout noise is better for high ISO e.g. 3 electrons but worse at low ISO e.g. 30 electrons at ISO 100.

If you look at a bright pixel you get 10000 electrons from the photons +-100 electrons due to Poisson statistics (even a perfect sensor will get that). The S/N ratio is 100.

If you look at a dark pixel you get 100 electrons from photons and +-10 electrons from Poisson statistics. The S/N ratio is 10.

Now factor in the read noise.
- Bright pixel:
-- Canon: 100+30, S/N 77
-- Nikon: 100+5, S/N 95
- Not much difference.

- Dark pixel:
-- Canon: 10+30, S/N 2.5
-- Nikon: 10+5, S/N 6.7
- Almost a factor of 3!

If you do the same calculation at high ISO, the Canon sensor gets a little advantage.


From this we can conclude that BRIGHT pixels have the SAME QUALITY with a Canon and a Sony sensor.
But DARK pixels suffer from readout noise and here the Sony sensor is much better.

So if you do not underexpose or lift the shadows in your pictures, you will be OK with current Canon sensors.

Oh boy....


I do this stuff every day for work.

Yes poisson noise is also present, but as the two situations I'm comparing here have the same light levels, the poissn noise is identical, so we can drop it out of the equations.

Also you don't just add the noise. it's an RMS.. (in volts) so that changes the maths a little, Sqrt(Noise A+ Noise B)

Yes, I should have used RMS addition of the independent noise.

No, the Poisson noise is important to calculate the S/N value which considers all noise sources.


After all, this exactly explains why cameras with the same sensor size have the same SNR18% performance (in print mode) on DXO. Also it explains why the dynamic range is worse on Canon sensors compared to new Nikon/Sony sensors. Also it explains why Canon has equal or better high ISO performance.

 

[FEBS]

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 !!!

I bought the T2i several years ago when I first needed a crop and wanted to cut my teeth. The 5D3 isn't a crop, it's FF.

What a joke man!

Of course I know the 5D3 is a FF, but you mentioned that "THEY HAVEN'T MADE A SINGLE INNOVATION IN SENSOR TECHNOLOGY IN YEARS". So that's no true, look at 5D3, DPAF so there is development, but not the big megapixels as I presume you would like to see.

Very strange behavior you have. It's just like someone driving a BMW 1-series, and then says the development of the engines stayed for years on the same level as the M3 engine could only get 20 hp more during the last 8 years. So you forget all the other important things as suspension, gearbox, stability, durability, brakes, economical motor management,.. and then telling that BMW would produce bad engines as there is no new engine developed and they keep on going on the same old engine. That's what your are telling. But of course never driving a car like that (here I mean the 5D3 or 1Dx) extensively to feel what they are capable.

 

[rfdesigner]

Yes poisson noise is also present, but as the two situations I'm comparing here have the same light levels, the poissn noise is identical, so we can drop it out of the equations.

he is comparing sensor behavior. the light level IS the same for both.

it´s the difference between an ISO variant vs. invariant sensor.

Poisson noise is implicit in a FLOW.. (the light), once that flow has ended if we wish to half/double etc the ratio between the Poisson noise and the signal level remains constant.. it's how we can measure the readout noise on sensors in electrons.

 

[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?

 

[RickWagoner]

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?

WOW Nikon actually did built in WIFI! Ok now Cannon has to step up!

 

[FEBS]

Hah, spot on, FEBS.

I used to have a personal t2i that I'd use alongside a D300 for sports, and I call bullshit on Accipter's claim as well that he shoots wildlife/sports/action on it. Sold that S___ and upgraded as soon as I could afford it. If you ACTUALLY shot SERIOUS SPORTS, then you're going to know that AUTOFOCUS TRUMPS DR in any F______ argument. Have no money? Sell the t2i and get a 1d mk ii n and stop your bitching and moaning. Buy the 1dx otherwise if you're that "invested," which I doubt you are. If you have a 55-250 or a 70-200 f/4, go, SWITCH TO NIKON and stop your moaning. Can't afford their 70-200 f/4 VR? Boofuckinghoo. Entitled git.

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 !!!

Ha! I don't agree with some of the points above (and pretty much any of the points Acci made, but all these posts made me break a chuckle.
Love the passion!

You actually think the 70D is an improvement over the T2i in any way shape or form? You actually think rehashing the same garbage sensor they've been retching up is going to give you what, more than a 1% upgrade in image quality? Seriously?

Yes for sure. there is even a big improvement. I regular have the opportunity with my photo friends to test all those models. The 70D is much better then the T2i. I agree, the mp is only increased by 12%, but I even would have liked a 7D2 with 18mp, or even 16mp. It's not the mp that makes that action camera great. It's all around, the total mix, and that's only as weak as the weakest link of a chain!!! If the sensor of the 7D2 is the same as the 70D, there will be no other crop camera on the market to beat this 7D2.

 

[Khalai]

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...

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

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.

 

[Loswr]

HUMMMM
D750 is a very good camera, for $ 2,3K.
Why pay %1,9K for a 7DII?

To piss off the CR Forum trolls, of course.

 

[pknight]

OK. While some people are apparently convinced that the sensor is the only important component of a camera, I am curious about some functionality related specs that have not been mentioned. First, it would be nice to be able to bracket more than three exposures. Also, it would be great to have a true auto-ISO, where you could dial in exposure compensation, like you can in auto-Av or auto-Tv. These seem like no-brainers, but we will see. (I can do the bracket expansion with ML on the 7D, but ML crashes my camera far too often for me to be comfortable using it. I don't think it will harm anything, but I don't need a camera that just randomly goes dead. And, of course, it will be a long time, if ever, before ML is available for a new camera body.)

 

[iceman]

Yes for sure. there is even a big improvement. I regular have the opportunity with my photo friends to test all those models. The 70D is much better then the T2i. I agree, the mp is only increased by 12%,

Agree with you there, used to own a T2i. Was shooting sports more but wanted better IQ so I got the 70D. Based on specs and some reviews they 70D has only a slight or hardly noticeable improvement. After my first day shooting basketball with it, ISO 3200 and 6400 were cleaner or at least easier to clean in post. For what I shoot, I am happy and consider the 70D a lot better than the sensor on the T2i (7D).