EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]

[ajfotofilmagem]

I been following the various postings on the mythical 7D MkII, over the last eighteen months or so and I finally said enough was enough and last week I pulled the trigger on a Gripped 70D. I am now so pleased that I have the 7D MkII monkey off my back, I can now go out and enjoy using my new 70D.
The 7D MkII will more than likely have a similar processor to the 70D, although the 70D version will have been hobbled a little so as to make the 7D MkII look good. The 7D MkII will probably have 4k video which doesn't really excite me too much, as I prefer stills photography. All in all and whenever it arrives it will be a wonderful camera. Perhaps when it does eventually arrive, I just might think about a trade with my then old 70D.
Man is it good to breath again 8)

Welcome to the forum. Yes, currently 70D is a better choice for most uses. Few people really need to do 8 shots per second in rain or sandstorm. While 7D does not have a direct replacement, 70D is eating the sales of her older sister. :

 

[Sanaraken]

This 7DII announcement is whats keeping me from getting the 70D.

 

[Don Haines]

This 7DII announcement is whats keeping me from getting the 70D.

If my 60D died tomorrow, I'd get a 70D. At least to me, it's not enough of an upgrade to go for... I keep waiting for the 7D2....

 

[mkabi]

Welcome to the forum. Yes, currently 70D is a better choice for most uses. Few people really need to do 8 shots per second in rain or sandstorm. While 7D does not have a direct replacement, 70D is eating the sales of her older sister. :

You dont' have to be in the rain or a sandstorm to reap the benefits of a 7D's tank like build.
At least, this guy would have benefitted from it:
Wedding Photographer Fail

And, it truly is a trouper.... check this out:
Canon 7D - Hardcore Durability Test

 

[Don Haines]

And, it truly is a trouper.... check this out:
Canon 7D - Hardcore Durability Test

WOW!

 

[Lee Jay]

When it comes to identical framing, more pixels will always win,....

Which is exactly what I've been saying.

in which case full frame sensors with larger pixels will trounce an APS-C sensor with smaller pixels. TROUNCE.

Try to stay on topic. We're talking about smaller pixels, not larger sensors.

The images above actually prove my point. The smaller pixels are considerably noisier. They do have more detail, but they are a lot noisier. Your original comment was that smaller pixels were less noisy. That is completely false. Your own images clearly prove they are far noisier.

My point was that smaller pixels on the same size sensor, make better images, even in noise performance. And my image does show that.

When it comes to identical output magnification, again your images prove my point.[/quote]

The right-column is at the same output magnification too - and the smaller pixels have obliterated the large pixels.

 

[Lee Jay]

The G15 with its teeny, tiny pixels out-performs the 1Dx in DR even with its enormous pixels.

Yes, that G15 is really beating the pants off the 1D X in terms of DR. Wait, I'm wrong. For a minute there, I thought DR was like golf where lower numbers were better. Oops. :

1Dx: 11.2 stops at base ISO: http://sensorgen.info/CanonEOS-1D_X.html
G15: 11.5 stops at base ISO: http://sensorgen.info/CanonPowershot_G15.html

 

[Loswr]

The G15 with its teeny, tiny pixels out-performs the 1Dx in DR even with its enormous pixels.

Yes, that G15 is really beating the pants off the 1D X in terms of DR. Wait, I'm wrong. For a minute there, I thought DR was like golf where lower numbers were better. Oops. :

1Dx: 11.2 stops at base ISO: http://sensorgen.info/CanonEOS-1D_X.html
G15: 11.5 stops at base ISO: http://sensorgen.info/CanonPowershot_G15.html

And according to DxO's measurements,

1D X: 11.77 stops at base ISO
G15: 11.52 stops at base ISO

But the bottom line is that it's wash - 1/3 stop either way, and the direction of the difference varies by the source of the data.

Also, you stated that the G15 'out-performs' the 1D X…but you neglected to qualify that statement with 'at base ISO' - and those base ISOs are different (ISO 80 for the G15, ISO 100 for the 1D X).

From the data in your the tables you linked, at the same ISO the 1D X has the advantage…and it's an advantage that gets progressively larger as ISO is increased. Maybe you have the same attitude that the DxOMark Score is based on - only base ISO matters. Have you ever raised your ISO setting above the base ISO? If so, stating that, "The G15 ... out-performs the 1Dx in DR," is pretty hypocritical, when even at ISO 100 that's not true, and starting at ISO 800 the 1D X has a 2-stop advantage.

 

[philmoz]

The 1DX will win because of a bigger sensor and bigger optics, not because of larger pixels. If it had the G15's pixels, it would do even better.

Sorry; but that just looks like you've taken an area of the G15 that was in focus due to the greater DOF of the small sensor, and compared it to an out-of-focus area from the 1DX.

Proves nothing.

Phil.

 

[Don Haines]

The G15 with its teeny, tiny pixels out-performs the 1Dx in DR even with its enormous pixels.

Yes, that G15 is really beating the pants off the 1D X in terms of DR. Wait, I'm wrong. For a minute there, I thought DR was like golf where lower numbers were better. Oops. :

1Dx: 11.2 stops at base ISO: http://sensorgen.info/CanonEOS-1D_X.html
G15: 11.5 stops at base ISO: http://sensorgen.info/CanonPowershot_G15.html

And according to DxO's measurements,

1D X: 11.77 stops at base ISO
G15: 11.52 stops at base ISO

But the bottom line is that it's wash - 1/3 stop either way, and the direction of the difference varies by the source of the data.

Also, you stated that the G15 'out-performs' the 1D X…but you neglected to qualify that statement with 'at base ISO' - and those base ISOs are different (ISO 80 for the G15, ISO 100 for the 1D X).

From the data in your the tables you linked, at the same ISO the 1D X has the advantage…and it's an advantage that gets progressively larger as ISO is increased. Maybe you have the same attitude that the DxOMark Score is based on - only base ISO matters. Have you ever raised your ISO setting above the base ISO? If so, stating that, "The G15 ... out-performs the 1Dx in DR," is pretty hypocritical, when even at ISO 100 that's not true, and starting at ISO 800 the 1D X has a 2-stop advantage.

I am at a loss here. I don't understand what this has to do with a 7DII announcement rumour......

don't make me post more squirrel pictures

 

[jeffa4444]

The Photography Show Update:

Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Fuji & Panasonic all have show only or show better discounts. Spoke at length to a couple of sales guys I know at Camera World and Calumet and they both said sales of Olympus and Fuji CSC cameras were really buoyant the Olympus OM-D E-M1 was really doing well along with good early adoption of the OM-D E-M10. The three dealers Calumet, Camera World and London Camera Exchange seemed busy all the time with eager purchasers.

Canon was less busy than Nikon with the Nikon stand seeing the most interest for the Df and the D4s but still good activity for the D800 / D610.
The Canon stand seemed to have the focus on the 5dMKIII, 1dx and the 70d

Had to succumb to the deal for the EF 100 f2.8L Macro IS USM

 

[jrista]

When it comes to identical framing, more pixels will always win,....

Which is exactly what I've been saying.

in which case full frame sensors with larger pixels will trounce an APS-C sensor with smaller pixels. TROUNCE.

Try to stay on topic. We're talking about smaller pixels, not larger sensors.

The images above actually prove my point. The smaller pixels are considerably noisier. They do have more detail, but they are a lot noisier. Your original comment was that smaller pixels were less noisy. That is completely false. Your own images clearly prove they are far noisier.

My point was that smaller pixels on the same size sensor, make better images, even in noise performance. And my image does show that.

When it comes to identical output magnification, again your images prove my point.

The right-column is at the same output magnification too - and the smaller pixels have obliterated the large pixels.
[/quote]

Assuming identical sensor size, then the only benefit of smaller pixels is the potential for higher resolution. But there is absolutely no way that smaller pixels are less noisy. Not a chance. Your own sample images more than prove that, and in the same output magnification scenario, there is only a very small difference: the top image is definitely noisier!

There is no way on earth, within the realm of reality and facts, that you can claim smaller pixels are less noisy. It just isn't the case. Smaller pixels may resolve more, but they are noisier. In terms of same output magnification, at best you get the same amount of noise from two identically sized sensors with different pixel sizes...but you still cannot improve the amount of noise with smaller pixels. Because noise is intrinsic to the SIGNAL, which really has nothing to do with how big the sensor pixels are...only how large the region of the image circle that is being resolved by the sensor is.

 

[Loswr]

I am at a loss here. I don't understand what this has to do with a 7DII announcement rumour......

don't make me post more squirrel pictures

Not sure...maybe the point is if the 7DII has teeny tiny G15-sized pixels it'll have maybe-ever-so-slightly more DR at base ISO thaN the 1D X, if the 7DII has an ISO 80 setting?

Squirrels are fine...but please, no nuts!

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Squirrels are fine...but please, no nuts!

;D +1