Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]

[jrista]

Okay, that makes sense. However, these were field shots at a soccer game under lights and ISO 25,600 is so grainy and noisy that when you apply sufficient NR, the faces and soccer ball are blurry, which I cannot have. That's why I was saying in this case that the photos were unusable. I suppose when you have more, even lighting it is different. The shadows are actually really, really bad. I think the problem is that this "ISO advantage" is based more upon specs and even lit situations, vs. real-life harsh situations.

I'm curious what the full camera settings were. I've browsed through quite a few sample shots from the 1D X at high ISO, and what your describing is rather surprising. The only thing that I can think of is that you were shooting at REALLY high shutter speeds, and were simply not getting enough light down the lens. And, if that were the case, I would actually recommend using ISO 51200 for better results. If you can't get enough light down the lens, a higher ISO setting, even if its the maximum, will almost always be better than shooting with the wrong settings, as photon shot noise will completely dominate. Also, keep in mind, "noise" at ISO settings as high as this is all relative. The noise on the 1D X at ISO 25600 is only going to be "relatively less" than noise on an older Canon one to two stops lower. For example, the noise on the 1D X at 25600 is probably similar to noise on the 5D II or 1Ds III at ISO 6400...thats still a lot of noise, its just that relatively speaking, its lower than the noise would be if either of those two cameras were actually capable of ISO 25600.

 

[bdunbar79]

I'm looking now, and my highest useable ISO was 16,000. Which I agree, is VERY good! I just want people to be careful because I see a lot of "it can go up to ISO.............etc." Just be careful and realize that the overall lighting matters too and 25,600 is really pushing the quality. I am however, very happy that it performs at as high of ISO's as it does. So no complaints on the camera at all. I'll use it again, so I'll have more shots to compare.

 

[bdunbar79]

Okay, that makes sense. However, these were field shots at a soccer game under lights and ISO 25,600 is so grainy and noisy that when you apply sufficient NR, the faces and soccer ball are blurry, which I cannot have. That's why I was saying in this case that the photos were unusable. I suppose when you have more, even lighting it is different. The shadows are actually really, really bad. I think the problem is that this "ISO advantage" is based more upon specs and even lit situations, vs. real-life harsh situations.

I'm curious what the full camera settings were. I've browsed through quite a few sample shots from the 1D X at high ISO, and what your describing is rather surprising. The only thing that I can think of is that you were shooting at REALLY high shutter speeds, and were simply not getting enough light down the lens. And, if that were the case, I would actually recommend using ISO 51200 for better results. If you can't get enough light down the lens, a higher ISO setting, even if its the maximum, will almost always be better than shooting with the wrong settings, as photon shot noise will completely dominate. Also, keep in mind, "noise" at ISO settings as high as this is all relative. The noise on the 1D X at ISO 25600 is only going to be "relatively less" than noise on an older Canon one to two stops lower. For example, the noise on the 1D X at 25600 is probably similar to noise on the 5D II or 1Ds III at ISO 6400...thats still a lot of noise, its just that relatively speaking, its lower than the noise would be if either of those two cameras were actually capable of ISO 25600.

That's exactly it. I was shooting at 1/640s and for soccer, that was still a bit slow. Next time I will accept the low light and open up the aperture, and just realize that I'll have to go for specific player shots, as DOF will be limited. I was 1/640s at f/6.3, ISO 25,600. In the future, when it gets that dark, I'll use wider aperture values, and I'm not afraid to go all the way to f/2.8. The point is, in my kitchen shooting at ISO 25,600 I could clean up, but out in real life on the field, it didn't work out so nicely.

 

[Stone]

I don't see the specs as THAT far fetched, the 7D is supposed to be the king of crop bodies. It makes perfect sense to me that it have this kind of spec sheet. The 61pt AF is a no brainer since it works so well in the 1 & 5 series bodies and should be exclusive to the top of the line xD series bodies and 10fps is no longer the holy grail considering the blistering performance of the 1DX.

The only unknown is the sensor. Are we finally going to see some new tech from Canon? The 18MP sensor has been ubiquitous among Canon crop bodies for some time now. It makes sense to release a new higher resolution sensor on a flagship APS-C body. Having a slightly higher MP count isn't going to matter much to Enthusiast/Pro buyers who understand the performance characteristics of FF vs Crop, but birders and those limited by reach (like myself) would certainly appreciate the upgrade, it would also be nice marketing material for amateurs who just wanna spend a bundle since Megapixels still sell cameras.

I do expect the price for this kind of performance to increase by about $1K, this is Canon we're talking about here. Considering the recent firmware upgrades, I can't see the 7DII dropping this year. Canon HAS to release it's high MP monster and affordable FF bodies in the Fall/Spring just to remain competitive with the dark side, so I see a 7DII as a late summer 2013 camera which is fine by me if they spend some quality time on the sensor......

 

[distant.star]

.
I think they must pay some retired PR/media guys to dream this stuff up and send it out through the rumor mill. Wonder how I can get in on this action! Pay must be good enough for a couple of nice dinners and drinks out each month.

Let's all raise a glass for good disinformation!!!

 

[marekjoz]

I don't see the specs as THAT far fetched, the 7D is supposed to be the king of crop bodies. (...)

I've read his sentence as "(...)the 7D is supposed to be the king of crap bodies." and I really don't know why, but I liked this opinion

 

[hmmm]

I don't see the specs as THAT far fetched, the 7D is supposed to be the king of crop bodies. (...)

I've read his sentence as "(...)the 7D is supposed to be the king of crap bodies." and I really don't know why, but I liked this opinion

What juvenile humor. Oh well, got me to laugh. ;D

I really like the idea that we'll know for sure by the end of next week. Come on... twin announcement for 70D and 7D mkII !!!

 

[marekjoz]

I don't see the specs as THAT far fetched, the 7D is supposed to be the king of crop bodies. (...)

I've read his sentence as "(...)the 7D is supposed to be the king of crap bodies." and I really don't know why, but I liked this opinion

What juvenile humor. Oh well, got me to laugh. ;D

I really like the idea that we'll know for sure by the end of next week. Come on... twin announcement for 70D and 7D mkII !!!

What's wrong with sharing own experiences? You brought my selfconfidence to the upper level with your proper sensation
EDIT: I have my own 7D, so I personally wouldn't like it to be the king of crap. I love my 7D. I care about it a lot - I get it outside for a a fresh air but I let it stay in warm backpack for the most of the time. I love it so much, that I do my best not to make it overworked.

 

[jrista]

Okay, that makes sense. However, these were field shots at a soccer game under lights and ISO 25,600 is so grainy and noisy that when you apply sufficient NR, the faces and soccer ball are blurry, which I cannot have. That's why I was saying in this case that the photos were unusable. I suppose when you have more, even lighting it is different. The shadows are actually really, really bad. I think the problem is that this "ISO advantage" is based more upon specs and even lit situations, vs. real-life harsh situations.

I'm curious what the full camera settings were. I've browsed through quite a few sample shots from the 1D X at high ISO, and what your describing is rather surprising. The only thing that I can think of is that you were shooting at REALLY high shutter speeds, and were simply not getting enough light down the lens. And, if that were the case, I would actually recommend using ISO 51200 for better results. If you can't get enough light down the lens, a higher ISO setting, even if its the maximum, will almost always be better than shooting with the wrong settings, as photon shot noise will completely dominate. Also, keep in mind, "noise" at ISO settings as high as this is all relative. The noise on the 1D X at ISO 25600 is only going to be "relatively less" than noise on an older Canon one to two stops lower. For example, the noise on the 1D X at 25600 is probably similar to noise on the 5D II or 1Ds III at ISO 6400...thats still a lot of noise, its just that relatively speaking, its lower than the noise would be if either of those two cameras were actually capable of ISO 25600.

That's exactly it. I was shooting at 1/640s and for soccer, that was still a bit slow. Next time I will accept the low light and open up the aperture, and just realize that I'll have to go for specific player shots, as DOF will be limited. I was 1/640s at f/6.3, ISO 25,600. In the future, when it gets that dark, I'll use wider aperture values, and I'm not afraid to go all the way to f/2.8. The point is, in my kitchen shooting at ISO 25,600 I could clean up, but out in real life on the field, it didn't work out so nicely.

In your kitchen, your subjects are probably only a few feet away. Out on a soccer field, your subjects are probably ten times as far away. Remember, light has an inverse square falloff...even if its a bright light source, on the field that light has to travel from the bulb to the subject, then from the subject to the camera. Our eyes adjust automatically, however cameras are fixed devices. A soccer field is not a particularly bright place in the grand scheme of things. The difference between f/2.8 and f/6.3 is more than two stops, or more than a four-fold difference in light let down the lens. If you simply double your aperture to f/4.5, that alone would probably do wonders (either you could drop to ISO 12800 and get more DR, or keep using 25600 and get a more saturated shot.)

 

[Bosman]

I got nothin to say till its at least CR2.

 

[dlleno]

I got nothin to say till its at least CR2.

like

 

[marekjoz]

Okay, that makes sense. However, these were field shots at a soccer game under lights and ISO 25,600 is so grainy and noisy that when you apply sufficient NR, the faces and soccer ball are blurry, which I cannot have. That's why I was saying in this case that the photos were unusable. I suppose when you have more, even lighting it is different. The shadows are actually really, really bad. I think the problem is that this "ISO advantage" is based more upon specs and even lit situations, vs. real-life harsh situations.

I'm curious what the full camera settings were. I've browsed through quite a few sample shots from the 1D X at high ISO, and what your describing is rather surprising. The only thing that I can think of is that you were shooting at REALLY high shutter speeds, and were simply not getting enough light down the lens. And, if that were the case, I would actually recommend using ISO 51200 for better results. If you can't get enough light down the lens, a higher ISO setting, even if its the maximum, will almost always be better than shooting with the wrong settings, as photon shot noise will completely dominate. Also, keep in mind, "noise" at ISO settings as high as this is all relative. The noise on the 1D X at ISO 25600 is only going to be "relatively less" than noise on an older Canon one to two stops lower. For example, the noise on the 1D X at 25600 is probably similar to noise on the 5D II or 1Ds III at ISO 6400...thats still a lot of noise, its just that relatively speaking, its lower than the noise would be if either of those two cameras were actually capable of ISO 25600.

That's exactly it. I was shooting at 1/640s and for soccer, that was still a bit slow. Next time I will accept the low light and open up the aperture, and just realize that I'll have to go for specific player shots, as DOF will be limited. I was 1/640s at f/6.3, ISO 25,600. In the future, when it gets that dark, I'll use wider aperture values, and I'm not afraid to go all the way to f/2.8. The point is, in my kitchen shooting at ISO 25,600 I could clean up, but out in real life on the field, it didn't work out so nicely.

In your kitchen, your subjects are probably only a few feet away. Out on a soccer field, your subjects are probably ten times as far away. Remember, light has an inverse square falloff...even if its a bright light source, on the field that light has to travel from the bulb to the subject, then from the subject to the camera. Our eyes adjust automatically, however cameras are fixed devices. A soccer field is not a particularly bright place in the grand scheme of things. The difference between f/2.8 and f/6.3 is more than two stops, or more than a four-fold difference in light let down the lens. If you simply double your aperture to f/4.5, that alone would probably do wonders (either you could drop to ISO 12800 and get more DR, or keep using 25600 and get a more saturated shot.)

Yes. Here are some examples from the soccer field with the spec details: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/uefa_euro_2012_blog_2.do Sometimes it's the quality "almost" achievable with 7D but in most cases with lenses rather out of the reach. Financial reach of course.

 

[jouster]

No way that's going to happen, 7D would be better than 5D3 in specs but without FF sensor.
But if it so, definitely going to upgrade.

Well, the 7D was better than the 5D2 except for its sensor. No reason the 7D2 couldn't be better than the 5D3 in the same way.

 

[bdunbar79]

Okay, that makes sense. However, these were field shots at a soccer game under lights and ISO 25,600 is so grainy and noisy that when you apply sufficient NR, the faces and soccer ball are blurry, which I cannot have. That's why I was saying in this case that the photos were unusable. I suppose when you have more, even lighting it is different. The shadows are actually really, really bad. I think the problem is that this "ISO advantage" is based more upon specs and even lit situations, vs. real-life harsh situations.

I'm curious what the full camera settings were. I've browsed through quite a few sample shots from the 1D X at high ISO, and what your describing is rather surprising. The only thing that I can think of is that you were shooting at REALLY high shutter speeds, and were simply not getting enough light down the lens. And, if that were the case, I would actually recommend using ISO 51200 for better results. If you can't get enough light down the lens, a higher ISO setting, even if its the maximum, will almost always be better than shooting with the wrong settings, as photon shot noise will completely dominate. Also, keep in mind, "noise" at ISO settings as high as this is all relative. The noise on the 1D X at ISO 25600 is only going to be "relatively less" than noise on an older Canon one to two stops lower. For example, the noise on the 1D X at 25600 is probably similar to noise on the 5D II or 1Ds III at ISO 6400...thats still a lot of noise, its just that relatively speaking, its lower than the noise would be if either of those two cameras were actually capable of ISO 25600.

That's exactly it. I was shooting at 1/640s and for soccer, that was still a bit slow. Next time I will accept the low light and open up the aperture, and just realize that I'll have to go for specific player shots, as DOF will be limited. I was 1/640s at f/6.3, ISO 25,600. In the future, when it gets that dark, I'll use wider aperture values, and I'm not afraid to go all the way to f/2.8. The point is, in my kitchen shooting at ISO 25,600 I could clean up, but out in real life on the field, it didn't work out so nicely.

In your kitchen, your subjects are probably only a few feet away. Out on a soccer field, your subjects are probably ten times as far away. Remember, light has an inverse square falloff...even if its a bright light source, on the field that light has to travel from the bulb to the subject, then from the subject to the camera. Our eyes adjust automatically, however cameras are fixed devices. A soccer field is not a particularly bright place in the grand scheme of things. The difference between f/2.8 and f/6.3 is more than two stops, or more than a four-fold difference in light let down the lens. If you simply double your aperture to f/4.5, that alone would probably do wonders (either you could drop to ISO 12800 and get more DR, or keep using 25600 and get a more saturated shot.)

I agree that all of this is true. Which simply bolsters my point about shooting night soccer at ISO 25600 with a 1DX. It's beyond lab tests and spec sheets.

 

[Bosman]

No way that's going to happen, 7D would be better than 5D3 in specs but without FF sensor.
But if it so, definitely going to upgrade.

Well, the 7D was better than the 5D2 except for its sensor. No reason the 7D2 couldn't be better than the 5D3 in the same way.

I can only imagine the only thing it will be better at is FPS and possibly tracking...Maybe give it 1dx af system but with fewer points. Else, it won't touch a 5dm3 in my opinion but then we shall see.

 

[funkboy]

You lose about 1 stop of dynamic range for every stop of higher ISO.

DXOMark indicates that that's a bit of an oversimplification... Taking the example of the humble G1X (the most recent non-FF Canon for which DXO has measurements), after ISO1600 it does indeed lose a little less than a stop of DR per stop of ISO, but below that the ratio is far from linear (the DR at ISO1600 is only a little over a stop less than the DR at ISO100).

If the 4/3ish G1X has almost 10 EV of DR at ISO1600 then an APS-C 7D replacement should fare far better...

 

[jrista]

Okay, that makes sense. However, these were field shots at a soccer game under lights and ISO 25,600 is so grainy and noisy that when you apply sufficient NR, the faces and soccer ball are blurry, which I cannot have. That's why I was saying in this case that the photos were unusable. I suppose when you have more, even lighting it is different. The shadows are actually really, really bad. I think the problem is that this "ISO advantage" is based more upon specs and even lit situations, vs. real-life harsh situations.

I don't think you would need to open wide up to f/2.8 though. You should only need to open up one more stop to f/4.5, and drop to ISO 12800. You would have over 5 stops of DR at that point, and less noise, without a huge loss to DOF, which should change things considerably.

I'm curious what the full camera settings were. I've browsed through quite a few sample shots from the 1D X at high ISO, and what your describing is rather surprising. The only thing that I can think of is that you were shooting at REALLY high shutter speeds, and were simply not getting enough light down the lens. And, if that were the case, I would actually recommend using ISO 51200 for better results. If you can't get enough light down the lens, a higher ISO setting, even if its the maximum, will almost always be better than shooting with the wrong settings, as photon shot noise will completely dominate. Also, keep in mind, "noise" at ISO settings as high as this is all relative. The noise on the 1D X at ISO 25600 is only going to be "relatively less" than noise on an older Canon one to two stops lower. For example, the noise on the 1D X at 25600 is probably similar to noise on the 5D II or 1Ds III at ISO 6400...thats still a lot of noise, its just that relatively speaking, its lower than the noise would be if either of those two cameras were actually capable of ISO 25600.

That's exactly it. I was shooting at 1/640s and for soccer, that was still a bit slow. Next time I will accept the low light and open up the aperture, and just realize that I'll have to go for specific player shots, as DOF will be limited. I was 1/640s at f/6.3, ISO 25,600. In the future, when it gets that dark, I'll use wider aperture values, and I'm not afraid to go all the way to f/2.8. The point is, in my kitchen shooting at ISO 25,600 I could clean up, but out in real life on the field, it didn't work out so nicely.

In your kitchen, your subjects are probably only a few feet away. Out on a soccer field, your subjects are probably ten times as far away. Remember, light has an inverse square falloff...even if its a bright light source, on the field that light has to travel from the bulb to the subject, then from the subject to the camera. Our eyes adjust automatically, however cameras are fixed devices. A soccer field is not a particularly bright place in the grand scheme of things. The difference between f/2.8 and f/6.3 is more than two stops, or more than a four-fold difference in light let down the lens. If you simply double your aperture to f/4.5, that alone would probably do wonders (either you could drop to ISO 12800 and get more DR, or keep using 25600 and get a more saturated shot.)

I agree that all of this is true. Which simply bolsters my point about shooting night soccer at ISO 25600 with a 1DX. It's beyond lab tests and spec sheets.

You might actually benefit from ISO 51200 if your having so much trouble. I was wrong before about DR...I forgot that Canon sensors are actually chopping off about two stops on the low ISO end, so you would have around 6 stops at ISO 25600, and 5 stops at ISO 51200. When you can't get enough light down the lens, the best thing to do is increase ISO and maximize exposure (without blowing highlights...something the 1D X with its RGB metering sensor should be able to handle with ease, and possibly a -1/3rd stop EC when your photographing white jerseys and the like.)

 

[jrista]

You lose about 1 stop of dynamic range for every stop of higher ISO.

DXOMark indicates that that's a bit of an oversimplification... Taking the example of the humble G1X (the most recent non-FF Canon for which DXO has measurements), after ISO1600 it does indeed lose a little less than a stop of DR per stop of ISO, but below that the ratio is far from linear (the DR at ISO1600 is only a little over a stop less than the DR at ISO100).

If the 4/3ish G1X has almost 10 EV of DR at ISO1600 then an APS-C 7D replacement should fare far better...

Actually, its a bit different with Canon's, and I forgot to take the issue into account. Canon sensors become read-noise bound by ISO 400, and at ISO 200 and 100 they don't really gain any additional DR. So you actually start losing about 1 stop from ISO 400, meaning 1 stop at ISO 800, 2 at 1600, 3/3200, 4/6400, 5/12800, 6/25600. That would leave you with about 6 stops of DR at ISO 25600, not 4.2 stops. Apologies for the confusion.

 

[hmmm]

7d mkII and the free firmware upgrade? Maybe...

Got to thinking about this -- maybe the 70D will be an announcement for a product shipping the 4th quarter, and the 7D mkII will be announced at the same time but will ship in 1Q13. The 7D firmware upgrade would then serve as a bit of a bridge to help the 7D upgrader hold out for the more expensive 7D mkII. From that point of view the 7D firmware upgrade and the 7D mkII sooner rather than later make sense.

Here's to a dual announcement for the 70D and 7D mk II !

 

[bdunbar79]

jrista,

I got ya now. I'm willing to avoid that high of an ISO value, now that we know it's limitations in that particular setting. I'm totally comfortable shooting at f/4 down to f/3.2 if need be. I'd rather open up than raise the ISO for sure. Thanks for your explanations.

Sorry I seemed to have changed the thread