Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed

[privatebydesign]

Yeah but what are you basing this on? What makes you so sure the highs were the same and that you are not just getting tricked by the different default mid-tone point placement and default metering placement for Nikon?

It doesn't matter, and that is what you theoretical procrastinators don't get.

In Kieth's example with a Canon file those highlights are recoverable, if that was a Nikon file I do not believe they would have been. I don't profess to know why, and it normally takes you procrastinators a few years to catch up, but that is what I have found to be true, presumably Kieth and Sporgon have found that too.

I think your still missing the point we are trying to make, though. It doesn't matter if they aren't "as recoverable" with the default metered settings. If that turns out to be a regular problem, then you have TONS of room to underexpose with a D810 or any other Exmor camera, preserve the highlights and ensure they have detail, and you'll still have tons of shadow recovery ability.

What you guys are talking about is just the default metered, tone-curved response in a RAW editor. The dynamic range of the sensor doesn't have anything to do with that. More dynamic range is more dynamic range. You can have highlights as richly colored and detailed as you want to by properly utilizing the greater DR of an Exmor, without sacrificing the shadows.

You can make all the arguments you want about how incapable the average user might be in regards to actually being able to extract the most performance out of a camera like the D810. I think that's just more misdirection, though. If you look at what people are doing with those cameras, they clearly know how to put that extra DR to good use, how to extract the most performance from them. Especially photographers who know what RAW is and are going to be using RAW (which I think is a much greater percentage of those buying cameras above the $2000 mark than those buying below).

Even for those who start out not knowing much about how to use a digital camera are still capable of learning, and with more capable hardware comes the greater ease of producing amazing works of photographic art. I for one would love to see novices creating photos with rich blacks, instead of photos riddled with vertical banding (a fairly common sight on 500px "Fresh".) (Which I know for some, such as Sporgon, intrudes upon their prized elite status as a "real" photographer, a status for which they would apparently happily give up having better hardware in their own hands if it meant keeping the non-photographer masses non-photographers...a reasoning I honestly cannot fathom.)

I'm not missing the point, and I don't consider Nikon users dumb. I do take issue with constant references to "this is x amount better" when there is limited experience of both, and when that limited experience of both includes the obvious falsehood that both must be exposed the same, I cringe.

I am not saying Canon has more "high end DR" or that it has as much as Exmor, I am saying anybody that is so unfamiliar with the kit as to not know the differences in optimal exposures for both isn't going to get optimal results. Sure it might be classified as meter compensation, I have no problem with that, some cameras allow you to calibrate your meter; in the old film days we used to decide how far off the iso rating was to what we could actually shoot at, 1/3 stop was common for slide film.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Yeah but what are you basing this on? What makes you so sure the highs were the same and that you are not just getting tricked by the different default mid-tone point placement and default metering placement for Nikon?

It doesn't matter, and that is what you theoretical procrastinators don't get.

In Kieth's example with a Canon file those highlights are recoverable, if that was a Nikon file I do not believe they would have been. I don't profess to know why, and it normally takes you procrastinators a few years to catch up, but that is what I have found to be true, presumably Kieth and Sporgon have found that too.

it doesn't matter if you might not be doing what you think you are doing and that you might not be comparing equivalent highlights??? How do you know anything then?

 

[greger]

No built in WiFi! Seems to be a big omission of me. The 7Dll should be as astounding a camera upgrade was the 7D was in 2009. Why put it in 70D and not 7Dll? No articulating screen! I'm glad I'm happy with my 7D. I will save money and keep honing my skills.

 

[takesome1]

Says you and one other guy.
What about all the posts from Romy, myself, Jrista, wildlife photographers, etc. etc. that don't all align with a 20% under the most ideal scenario and barely there if ever at all in the real world.

Well other than nobody ever actually quantifying >20%, let alone the farcical 60%, I have never seen your images and the Romy images you keep harping on about consist of this one post http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1280.msg258952#msg258952

If you do some searching you can find his 7D and 5D MkII comparison here http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/128151871 as everybody does he did the comparison in totally artificial conditions, especially considering he is a wild bird shooter, and how do you quantify >20% from that example?

Jrista's moon mages, after he was corrected on his methodology a large portion of his results were found faulty, and again, we are talking shooting conditions far from average, good mounts, Live View manual focus etc etc.

Show me your comparisons showing >20% crop camera advantage and I will find errors in your methodology too.

I tested these things in pursuit of the best wildlife camera;

The problem with the crop advantage argument back in the day was that the files fresh out of the 7D had to be tweaked, worked and processed to get that 20%. (I say 20% but it wasn't 20%, it didn't make it to that level)
So if you didn't want to PP every picture to is best, you didn't see the advantage. This was somewhat true with the 5D II and it was very true with the 1D series bodies.

A person with no PP skills saw little or no benefit from the 7D crop.

This was a subject that was kicked to death back in the day.

NOW, maybe with the 7D II it will have some decent processing power in body and we can have the debate again. Again I will buy one, test it against my 1D IV because that is what I am still using. If the 7D II is better I will switch. If not I will gift it to a relative and just laugh as everyone spouts the numbers out in the forum without ever testing one.

 

[Marsu42]

Does anyone know if their has been any request to the admins regarding setting up a section specifically for all things Magic Lantern? As it is now one has to search for ML and/or Magic Lantern and get posts that are spread out rather thin over both time and subjects. What do you think?

There already is a "real "ML forum, so the question is why should be different here in the CR ML section. For one, the ml devs wouldn't be around so you'd get less competent answers. On the other hand, it would be less technical, over-modereated or geeky, the reason why I have lost interest posting over there. But if the result it's that any ML discussion should be moved into the ML forum because ML covers so many aspects of photography. So my vote is simply keep opening ML threads in the general photography forum.

 

[Steve]

So if you didn't want to PP every picture to is best, you didn't see the advantage.

I don't think I'll ever understand why some people will drop thousands on high end, precision tools but then never bother to learn the important parts of the endeavor. If you're not gonna do post, why even take the picture?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Says you and one other guy.
What about all the posts from Romy, myself, Jrista, wildlife photographers, etc. etc. that don't all align with a 20% under the most ideal scenario and barely there if ever at all in the real world.

Well other than nobody ever actually quantifying >20%, let alone the farcical 60%, I have never seen your images and the Romy images you keep harping on about consist of this one post http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1280.msg258952#msg258952

If you do some searching you can find his 7D and 5D MkII comparison here http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/128151871 as everybody does he did the comparison in totally artificial conditions, especially considering he is a wild bird shooter, and how do you quantify >20% from that example?

Jrista's moon mages, after he was corrected on his methodology a large portion of his results were found faulty, and again, we are talking shooting conditions far from average, good mounts, Live View manual focus etc etc.

Show me your comparisons showing >20% crop camera advantage and I will find errors in your methodology too.

I tested these things in pursuit of the best wildlife camera;

The problem with the crop advantage argument back in the day was that the files fresh out of the 7D had to be tweaked, worked and processed to get that 20%. (I say 20% but it wasn't 20%, it didn't make it to that level)
So if you didn't want to PP every picture to is best, you didn't see the advantage. This was somewhat true with the 5D II and it was very true with the 1D series bodies.

A person with no PP skills saw little or no benefit from the 7D crop.

This was a subject that was kicked to death back in the day.

NOW, maybe with the 7D II it will have some decent processing power in body and we can have the debate again. Again I will buy one, test it against my 1D IV because that is what I am still using. If the 7D II is better I will switch. If not I will gift it to a relative and just laugh as everyone spouts the numbers out in the forum without ever testing one.

This image, created with an original 7D, has had minimal processing. A slight amount of NR slider and Sharpen slider in LR, a slight boost to clarity and vibrance...then a few minutes masking the the foreground out to apply heavy NR on the background. Other than that, it's basically as-is out of camera...critically sharp, high quality data:

This was shot with an EF 500mm f/4 L II lens on a tripod with a gimbal. I was sitting in a chair. Not a particularly unusual situation...I do pretty much the same thing out in the wild when photographing other birds and wildlife. Although my chair is usually a tree stump or log...or I'm simply standing. I found a subject, hit the focus button, grabbed a burst of 3-5 frames. Pick the best.

Not much to it. I rented the lens for a couple hundred bucks for a week. I honestly don't understand arguments about how difficult it is to make the most of your equipment. Honestly don't. If your a novice who's just getting started, sure...but if you are someone who actually seeks out better equipment to up your game...it's really not difficult.

+1
it's just not that hard to do

And it's ironic that it seems to be mostly those who rag on DRoners for being incompetent outside of the lab who seem to be the ones not able to get the most out of their equipment in the field even in a scenario where it should be pretty trivial to pull off, maybe not in every single case, but in a lot of cases. I mean if all you shoot is crows sitting in shadows while saving highlights at ISO6400 and up, it might be hard to see the reach advantage a lot, but.... or if you are using silly slow shutter speeds or don't bother to micr-focus adjust your lenses or something, but now these last two cases are just user error and extreme user error at that.

And I say this as someone who sold off my 7D and 5D2 for a 5D3, so it's not like I'm defending what I own. I own only the 5D3 at this point in time and I still say that the 7D gave me better reach, lab or real world and it is something I miss a bit, basically the only thing I miss about my 7D (although the fps was nice too, although only in some scenarios, in some it missed AF enough that the fps almost became the same as with the 5D3, in other cases the extra frames were a help, so that too a bit actually). If I had had the money at the time, I would've kept the 7D and I'd have used it for a lot of wildlife stuff since then.

I mean it's honestly trivial to use a 7D and a 5D3 and get hand-held snaps using AF where you clearly see quite noticeably more detail from the 7D shot when distance limited. And the 7D is probably the softest 18MP camera there is and yet it's still easy to make it pull more detail than a 5D2/5D3/1DX when distance limited.

 

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

50 pages of trolling based on exactly 0 images from this yet-to-be-released camera? I would like to ask the basis for the assumption that this body would have the same sensor as on the 70D. Or is that based on exactly 0 shreds of evidence as well?

 

[dufflover]

Seriously people still ask this? It's a RUMOUR site. RUMOUR discussion. I do not find it unreasonable at all that people state their assumption it is the same sensor (the fact it's the exact same res with similar features is saying more than just words it's a different sensor), then post their opinions on their guess.

And considering Canon recycled their old 18MP sensor for so long it is hardly a baseless assumption to make.

 

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

Okay, thanks for confirming it is based on exactly 0 images from this camera and unpublished specifications for the sensor.

 

[123Photog]

And considering Canon recycled their old 18MP sensor for so long it is hardly a baseless assumption to make.

+1

 

[123Photog]

how big are the chances for

USB3 ?
Ethernet?

 

[Canon1]

how big are the chances for

USB3 ?
Ethernet?

I could see usb3... But how would this be useful? I use a high speed card reader already for file transfer. Is there another feature I'm not thinking of that would benefit?

 

[123Photog]

how big are the chances for

USB3 ?
Ethernet?

I could see usb3... But how would this be useful? I use a high speed card reader already for file transfer. Is there another feature I'm not thinking of that would benefit?

i use my cameras tethered quite often.

 

[takesome1]

Says you and one other guy.
What about all the posts from Romy, myself, Jrista, wildlife photographers, etc. etc. that don't all align with a 20% under the most ideal scenario and barely there if ever at all in the real world.

Well other than nobody ever actually quantifying >20%, let alone the farcical 60%, I have never seen your images and the Romy images you keep harping on about consist of this one post http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1280.msg258952#msg258952

If you do some searching you can find his 7D and 5D MkII comparison here http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/128151871 as everybody does he did the comparison in totally artificial conditions, especially considering he is a wild bird shooter, and how do you quantify >20% from that example?

Jrista's moon mages, after he was corrected on his methodology a large portion of his results were found faulty, and again, we are talking shooting conditions far from average, good mounts, Live View manual focus etc etc.

Show me your comparisons showing >20% crop camera advantage and I will find errors in your methodology too.

I tested these things in pursuit of the best wildlife camera;

The problem with the crop advantage argument back in the day was that the files fresh out of the 7D had to be tweaked, worked and processed to get that 20%. (I say 20% but it wasn't 20%, it didn't make it to that level)
So if you didn't want to PP every picture to is best, you didn't see the advantage. This was somewhat true with the 5D II and it was very true with the 1D series bodies.

A person with no PP skills saw little or no benefit from the 7D crop.

This was a subject that was kicked to death back in the day.

NOW, maybe with the 7D II it will have some decent processing power in body and we can have the debate again. Again I will buy one, test it against my 1D IV because that is what I am still using. If the 7D II is better I will switch. If not I will gift it to a relative and just laugh as everyone spouts the numbers out in the forum without ever testing one.

This image, created with an original 7D, has had minimal processing. A slight amount of NR slider and Sharpen slider in LR, a slight boost to clarity and vibrance...then a few minutes masking the the foreground out to apply heavy NR on the background. Other than that, it's basically as-is out of camera...critically sharp, high quality data:

This was shot with an EF 500mm f/4 L II lens on a tripod with a gimbal. I was sitting in a chair. Not a particularly unusual situation...I do pretty much the same thing out in the wild when photographing other birds and wildlife. Although my chair is usually a tree stump or log...or I'm simply standing. I found a subject, hit the focus button, grabbed a burst of 3-5 frames. Pick the best.

Not much to it. I rented the lens for a couple hundred bucks for a week. I honestly don't understand arguments about how difficult it is to make the most of your equipment. Honestly don't. If your a novice who's just getting started, sure...but if you are someone who actually seeks out better equipment to up your game...it's really not difficult.

+1
it's just not that hard to do

And it's ironic that it seems to be mostly those who rag on DRoners for being incompetent outside of the lab who seem to be the ones not able to get the most out of their equipment in the field even in a scenario where it should be pretty trivial to pull off, maybe not in every single case, but in a lot of cases. I mean if all you shoot is crows sitting in shadows while saving highlights at ISO6400 and up, it might be hard to see the reach advantage a lot, but.... or if you are using silly slow shutter speeds or don't bother to micr-focus adjust your lenses or something, but now these last two cases are just user error and extreme user error at that.

And I say this as someone who sold off my 7D and 5D2 for a 5D3, so it's not like I'm defending what I own. I own only the 5D3 at this point in time and I still say that the 7D gave me better reach, lab or real world and it is something I miss a bit, basically the only thing I miss about my 7D (although the fps was nice too, although only in some scenarios, in some it missed AF enough that the fps almost became the same as with the 5D3, in other cases the extra frames were a help, so that too a bit actually). If I had had the money at the time, I would've kept the 7D and I'd have used it for a lot of wildlife stuff since then.

I mean it's honestly trivial to use a 7D and a 5D3 and get hand-held snaps using AF where you clearly see quite noticeably more detail from the 7D shot when distance limited. And the 7D is probably the softest 18MP camera there is and yet it's still easy to make it pull more detail than a 5D2/5D3/1DX when distance limited.

My 500mm F/4 IS is what I tested the 7D against other bodies on.
In the end any perceived benefit of the 7D crop went away when compared to the AF system of the 1D IV.
The resolution difference is small compared to the AF difference.

The 7D II can be pre ordered so it looks like I will be able to do the testing all over.

 

[takesome1]

So if you didn't want to PP every picture to is best, you didn't see the advantage.

I don't think I'll ever understand why some people will drop thousands on high end, precision tools but then never bother to learn the important parts of the endeavor. If you're not gonna do post, why even take the picture?

Whether to post process or not is a matter of preference. I have friends who are "pureists", in that they only like to photograph things as-is, do the best they possibly can with only the camera, and never post process anything. It's their form of the art...just them and the camera.

Personally, I prefer to do minimal post processing on my images when I have the option. I botch shots at times and have no option but to do a lot of recovery in post, but in general, I don't like to spend exorbitant numbers of hours processing photos. If I can get away with only some NR, sharpening, and maybe a slight boost to contrast and/or vibrancy/saturation, that's what I prefer. I can do that a lot more with my birds and wildlife...its a lot harder for me to get away with that when it comes to landscapes.

Post processing is not a necessity. Choosing not to do any at all does not invalidate someone as a photographer. Preferring to minimize post processing efforts is a laudable goal, IMO.

There are many that buy the 7D to take better pictures. I personally know a few people that own the 7D, none of them PP that is 100% of the people I know.
Of those posting here probably close to 100% PP, in the real world I imagine the actual number lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[wellfedCanuck]

Interesting that there's GPS but no WIFI, something I use all the time on my 6D for remote shooting. I'm guessing that this is because of the magnesium-alloy body?

 

[Canon1]

Interesting that there's GPS but no WIFI, something I use all the time on my 6D for remote shooting. I'm guessing that this is because of the magnesium-alloy body?

I'm guessing that it is because canon would rather sell you a wireless transmitter for $500+ rather than include it for free...

 

[Steve]

Whether to post process or not is a matter of preference. I have friends who are "pureists", in that they only like to photograph things as-is, do the best they possibly can with only the camera, and never post process anything. It's their form of the art...just them and the camera.

Personally, I prefer to do minimal post processing on my images when I have the option. I botch shots at times and have no option but to do a lot of recovery in post, but in general, I don't like to spend exorbitant numbers of hours processing photos. If I can get away with only some NR, sharpening, and maybe a slight boost to contrast and/or vibrancy/saturation, that's what I prefer. I can do that a lot more with my birds and wildlife...its a lot harder for me to get away with that when it comes to landscapes.

You don't do post just to correct mistakes, you do post work to make good photographs. Every wildlife photographer that's any good does extensive post work and its a huge part of the process. I've said before that I see a lot of people with really expensive gear taking bad photos and one of the biggest reasons they are bad is that they don't do any post.

Post processing is not a necessity.

It actually is. You either let the camera automate that process for you with the jpg engine or you do it yourself but one way or another it needs to be done.

If people want to drop five figures on camera gear and then post ooc jpgs on their flickr, that's their prerogative. To me, it just seems like buying a ferrari and only ever driving it to the market three blocks away.

 

[LesC]

Video review from WEX photographic where rep from Canon UK confirms it is a different sensor to the 70D:

http://www.wexphotographic.com/blog/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-announced