EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR2]

[LetTheRightLensIn]

OTOH the other high-end bodies, especially 5 series and 6 series become increasing tricky unless they match Exmor and fix up maximumal DR and IQ quality.

Yeah, Canon had better get on that quick, or else they'll lose market share to Nikon, Sony, and Pentax.






Except, they're not............ :

1. Whether they maintain market sure without doing that DOES NOT HELP ME OR ANY OF US IN THE FIELD. Maybe it you own a ton of their stock you care. Otherwise what the heck could does it do us?? I could give less if Canon sells 90% of all units if in the field I hit upon a high DR scene. What does their marketing figure do me in the field?

2. Eventually in time they will lose more share and who is to say they wouldn't have larger share now than they do.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The one possible way to increase high ISO IQ a good bit would be to radically increase high ISO DR. If you somehow radically reduced the black frame noise at high ISO. ISO3200 has a lot less DR than ISO200 and it becomes small indeed at ISO6400+. But that might require expensive tech at this point and perhaps advanced cooling systems as well. So it improved high ISO a ton is at a tricky state at this point.

Nah... Reducing the read noise is always good but .... away from the shadows, most of the noise you see at high ISO is shot noise.

BTW, the 6D has less read noise than the D600 at high ISO.

Yeah but the shadows would be deeper down if you had more DR.

6D does very well at high ISO, only 1DX does just a trace better really.

 

[Loswr]

OTOH the other high-end bodies, especially 5 series and 6 series become increasing tricky unless they match Exmor and fix up maximumal DR and IQ quality.

Yeah, Canon had better get on that quick, or else they'll lose market share to Nikon, Sony, and Pentax.






Except, they're not............ :

1. Whether they maintain market sure without doing that DOES NOT HELP ME OR ANY OF US IN THE FIELD. Maybe it you own a ton of their stock you care. Otherwise what the heck could does it do us?? I could give less if Canon sells 90% of all units if in the field I hit upon a high DR scene. What does their marketing figure do me in the field?

2. Eventually in time they will lose more share and who is to say they wouldn't have larger share now than they do.

Why, you're right...that marketing stuff, it's irrelevant. Doesn't mean a thing to users. Not a thing.

Except that IT DETERMINES WHAT FEATURES CANON WILL OR WILL NOT ADD, AND HOW THEY ALLOCATE THEIR R&D SPEND.

Really, we shouldn't care about that at all, obviously. :

As I've stated before...for several years, Sony/Nikon sensors have delivered better DR. For those same years, Nikon has lost market share to Canon. What about that situation would make Canon devote R&D spend to improving DR?!? Look at the 70D - revolutionary CMOS image sensor AF, same DR. Guess what? Even with the DR that the forum DRones DRone on about, the 70D will sell like gangbuster...reinforcing Canon management's viewpoint that DR isn't where they need to improve.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

If I loook at the products Canon introduced during the last few years almost all of them are far away from that what customers want to buy.

Canon is now loosing a lot of customers. No new lenses long awaited lenses, no 7D Mark II, now 1Ds Mark III replacement, no bigger megapixel camera etc.

You must have missed the refresh of the supertele lineup, the new 70-200 and 24-70s, and the 200-400.

They're losing customers? Got any data to support that? Or is it just more hot air?

For instance, I have two of the newer lenses that are reviled by this forum in that they just weren't deemed as important as what people really wanted: the 28mm F/2.8 IS USM and the 24-70mm F/4L IS USM. But as much as they aren't the lenses the fanboys and forum-dwellers wanted, they are both @#%@ing dynamite lenses -- especially for how and what I shoot.

I just don't get it. The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC would've given you the same thing as those two lenses AND then some (i.e 2.8 ), plus you would've had enough money left over for the something like the 100mm 2.8 macro or the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 or the 17-40 f4 L or the 70-200 f4 NON-IS. Your money could have gotten you so much more, I'm sorry. That's the real reason they were deemed unimportant. By 'fanboys' and 'forum-dwellers' I think you mean those who aren't too keen to waste their money.

And please don't say you need the marginal sharpness benefit of the Canon 24-70 f4. The Tamron is sharp enough for your needs, trust me.

 

[MichaelHodges]

I concur with the others in that the only upgrade from the 7D is FF, and even then, there's a hit in pixels-on-target (for wildlife considerations).

Canon really outdid themselves with the 7D. While I would prefer better low ISO DR and noise, it's a fantastic wildlife camera....maybe even the best. If I only shot portraits and landscapes, I wouldn't own it. I'd own a 5D II or 6D instead.

 

[sagittariansrock]

While it is true that a similarly-specc'ed FF sensor will always capture more than twice the amount of light as an APS-C sensor (because of the physics that you mention), it is quite likely that electronics innovation will produce a sensor that makes the newer generation APS-C sensor close to or even better than the previous generation FF.

With the 6D having 50% QE, Canon has to break a few physics laws, including that of energy conservation, to produce a Bayer APS-C sensor with QE of 128% (=1.6^2*50).

I am loathe to dismiss any future innovation as impossible. Once people thought flying heavier-than-air aircraft would be breaking the laws of physics!
On a more practical note, from what I understand QE is a averaged-out estimation of the percentage of photons driving electrons- it is heavily shifted towards brighter objects (first stop>>second stop...). It may be possible to increase sensitivity to the less bright objects- I know it's a bit of hand waving, but all I am trying to say is it is futile to second-guess future electronic innovations just for argument's sake.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

OTOH the other high-end bodies, especially 5 series and 6 series become increasing tricky unless they match Exmor and fix up maximumal DR and IQ quality.

Yeah, Canon had better get on that quick, or else they'll lose market share to Nikon, Sony, and Pentax.






Except, they're not............ :

1. Whether they maintain market sure without doing that DOES NOT HELP ME OR ANY OF US IN THE FIELD. Maybe it you own a ton of their stock you care. Otherwise what the heck could does it do us?? I could give less if Canon sells 90% of all units if in the field I hit upon a high DR scene. What does their marketing figure do me in the field?

2. Eventually in time they will lose more share and who is to say they wouldn't have larger share now than they do.

Why, you're right...that marketing stuff, it's irrelevant. Doesn't mean a thing to users. Not a thing.

Except that IT DETERMINES WHAT FEATURES CANON WILL OR WILL NOT ADD, AND HOW THEY ALLOCATE THEIR R&D SPEND.

Really, we shouldn't care about that at all, obviously. :

As I've stated before...for several years, Sony/Nikon sensors have delivered better DR. For those same years, Nikon has lost market share to Canon. What about that situation would make Canon devote R&D spend to improving DR?!? Look at the 70D - revolutionary CMOS image sensor AF, same DR. Guess what? Even with the DR that the forum DRones DRone on about, the 70D will sell like gangbuster...reinforcing Canon management's viewpoint that DR isn't where they need to improve.

Short-sighted and even worse, annoying for their users.
And where was the big sales crash before they decided to focus on non-1 series AF?

 

[Don Haines]

I am loathe to dismiss any future innovation as impossible. Once people thought flying heavier-than-air aircraft would be breaking the laws of physics!
On a more practical note, from what I understand QE is a averaged-out estimation of the percentage of photons driving electrons- it is heavily shifted towards brighter objects (first stop>>second stop...). It may be possible to increase sensitivity to the less bright objects- I know it's a bit of hand waving, but all I am trying to say is it is futile to second-guess future electronic innovations just for argument's sake.

I agree..... nobody can predict the future, but everyone tries. Let me share some visionary statements from some of the greatest minds of our times..

Bill Gates - No computer will ever need more than 64K of memory

Texas instruments, when unveiling the 16K by1 bit memory chip - "throw away your design tools, this is as dense as memory can be made"

All of us at work, concerning the invention of Darpa-net and it's transition to the internet - Someday this will be in every school and library.....

And my favourite, Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone, who envisioned that someday there would be a telephone in every city in North America.... (he was told it was impossible because of the amount of wire involved)

Our camera predictions just can not compete against such visionary giants....

 

[Pi]

I am loathe to dismiss any future innovation as impossible. Once people thought flying heavier-than-air aircraft would be breaking the laws of physics!

As birds do?

On a more practical note, from what I understand QE is a averaged-out estimation of the percentage of photons driving electrons- it is heavily shifted towards brighter objects (first stop>>second stop...). It may be possible to increase sensitivity to the less bright objects- I know it's a bit of hand waving, but all I am trying to say is it is futile to second-guess future electronic innovations just for argument's sake.

No, it is not that. They take into account the whole tonal range:

http://www.sensorgen.info/Calculations.html

What you are suggesting (strong non-linear response to the number of photons) has never been observed, AFAIK.

 

[Pi]

I am loathe to dismiss any future innovation as impossible. Once people thought flying heavier-than-air aircraft would be breaking the laws of physics!
On a more practical note, from what I understand QE is a averaged-out estimation of the percentage of photons driving electrons- it is heavily shifted towards brighter objects (first stop>>second stop...). It may be possible to increase sensitivity to the less bright objects- I know it's a bit of hand waving, but all I am trying to say is it is futile to second-guess future electronic innovations just for argument's sake.

I agree..... nobody can predict the future, but everyone tries. Let me share some visionary statements from some of the greatest minds of our times..

Bill Gates - No computer will ever need more than 64K of memory

Texas instruments, when unveiling the 16K by1 bit memory chip - "throw away your design tools, this is as dense as memory can be made"

All of us at work, concerning the invention of Darpa-net and it's transition to the internet - Someday this will be in every school and library.....

And my favourite, Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone, who envisioned that someday there would be a telephone in every city in North America.... (he was told it was impossible because of the amount of wire involved)

Our camera predictions just can not compete against such visionary giants....

Let's get serious. None of those predictions had any foundation in science.

Try something like: "you cannot turn iron into gold" (with a chemical reaction, anyway), "you cannot create Perpetuum Mobile", etc.

 

[Loswr]

Short-sighted and even worse, annoying for their users.

Annoying to you and a few other forum DRones who represent a tiny minority of Canon's user base (actually even that's an exaggeration - many of the CR DRones aren't even Canon users, they're just here to DRum up rancor).

But let me get this straight - focusing on selling more cameras than the competition is short-sighted? Tell me, what are you doing with your Betamax tapes? And are you enjoying the plethora of new movies being released in the HD-DVD format?

And where was the big sales crash before they decided to focus on non-1 series AF?

AF designed for video use. Pro video shooters use AF? That would be news to me, and to Canon as well. Fast video AF is a consumer-oriented feature, and quite frankly will likely be a very attractive feature to Rebel/xxxD owners, the likely target demographic of the 70D.

But thanks for playing! :

 

[unfocused]

This may be a CR2 rumor, but I am having a hard time taking it seriously.

I can believe either half of the rumor, but not both halves. Canon won't introduce the 7DII until 2014 (believable); Canon may re-use the 70D sensor (believable);

But, Canon will not introduce the 7DII until 2014 and will recycle the 70D sensor (not believable).

CR2 means a source that has been right in the past. I think this is a case where past performance is no indicator of future results.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Short-sighted and even worse, annoying for their users.

Annoying to you and a few other forum DRones who represent a tiny minority of Canon's user base (actually even that's an exaggeration - many of the CR DRones aren't even Canon users, they're just here to DRum up rancor).

But let me get this straight - focusing on selling more cameras than the competition is short-sighted? Tell me, what are you doing with your Betamax tapes? And are you enjoying the plethora of new movies being released in the HD-DVD format?

And where was the big sales crash before they decided to focus on non-1 series AF?

AF designed for video use. Pro video shooters use AF? That would be news to me, and to Canon as well. Fast video AF is a consumer-oriented feature, and quite frankly will likely be a very attractive feature to Rebel/xxxD owners, the likely target demographic of the 70D.

But thanks for playing! :

I pray you never join the board of Canon or Nikon.

 

[Marsu42]

I just don't get it. The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC would've given you the same thing as those two lenses AND then some (i.e 2.8 ).

I'm all in favor for the Tamron, but afaik newer Canon lenses like the 24-70/4 have the far superior (precision, speed) autofocus on the most expensive camera bodies 1dx/5d3. But apart from that, you just described why I'll go for the 100L (very slow af) + Tamron 24-70/2.8 (~crappy af) combination since I don't mind carrying two lenses.

CR2 means a source that has been right in the past.

Yes, but for being right once they have been wrong 10 times as far as I remember ... Canon internal information may leak just before an announcement because more people have access to it, but I suspect no one but the Japanese Canon execs and techs know the specs of 2014 camera bodies.

 

[vlim]

No announcement before 2014 not a surprise !

With that kind of rumor, that means a lot of 70D (and 7D) bodies will be sold because it will be an interesting and very capable dslr before the 7D II will be officialy announced and available ; and it means too a lot of time to work on this 7D II that will be a far better body for sure !

They just can't announce two dslr bodies in a 6 months span which can interest the same population of photographers (mostly sport and wildlife ones) that's why i'm confident in a far better body with the 7D II

Just a rumor, no panic 8)

 

[M.ST]

Prototypes for a 7D Mark II now exist over a year, but if I look at the 70D and 6D price I think that there is no space for an 7D Mark II between the mentioned cameras.

It seen so, that the 70D IS the new 7D Mark II. But without CF cards the camera has no change to go in the bag of pros.

A 750D will be introduced in the first half of 2014.

The new pro camera (in different versions) with the new sensor design is out for testing for a long time and works very well, but there is no reaction from Canon if you ask for the product introduction.

 

[Loswr]

A 750D will be introduced in the first half of 2014.

The sun will rise in the east. See, I can predict the obvious, too... :

 

[tapanit]

Once you owned 5D III, your 7D will most likely sitting in the bag & collecting dust - or end up on CL.

Mine doesn't. It has been demoted to "second body" position though, but I use two bodies often enough, and the 7D complements the 5D3 quite well. In particular I like it that their ergonomics are pretty similar - much more so than between 7D and 60D I used before. And sometimes 7D *is* better, in particular it has longer burst length, and in good light the extra reach is sometimes actually useful (well, just about enough to offset the generally better IQ from 5D3), so that a shorter lens (24-70, say) in the 5D3 and a long one (100-400) in the 7D make a good combination.

I would still be interested in 7D mk2 if it had sufficiently better IQ, especially with high(ish) ISOs, that it would produce visibly better pictures than the 5D3 in focal-length-limited situations. Better AF, higher fps and longer bursts (with raw) would also be appreciated. Everything else, like WiFi and GPS, would be icing on the cake - nice but not important.

 

[schill]

This may be a CR2 rumor, but I am having a hard time taking it seriously.

I can believe either half of the rumor, but not both halves. Canon won't introduce the 7DII until 2014 (believable); Canon may re-use the 70D sensor (believable);

But, Canon will not introduce the 7DII until 2014 and will recycle the 70D sensor (not believable).

CR2 means a source that has been right in the past. I think this is a case where past performance is no indicator of future results.

I agree. The combination of the two doesn't make sense to me.

 

[moreorless]

Prototypes for a 7D Mark II now exist over a year, but if I look at the 70D and 6D price I think that there is no space for an 7D Mark II between the mentioned cameras.

It seen so, that the 70D IS the new 7D Mark II. But without CF cards the camera has no change to go in the bag of pros.

I wouldn't say that the 7D2 needs to be "between" the 70D and the 6D, indeed I think it could potentially be above the 6D if its given 5D3 level build, pro AF and 10 FPS.