EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR2]

[Marsu42]

- 100% VF and 1x magnification

A ff will still have a larger ovf because of the larger mirror, a decisive advantage vs. crop and a reason on it's own to use a ff. If you enjoy a good laugh, grab an analog eos from the 90s and look through the 35mm vf... and then break out in tears when returning to your high tech crop peephole.

 

[Loswr]

It would be missing more than half of the sensor.

and that's the only thing 6D offers. better IQ and ISO. 7D(2) on the other hand:
- FPS
- AF speed, spread and points
- CF
- buffer
- 100% VF and 1x magnification
- more custom functions
- better weather sealing and durability
- (Dual, +?) Digic 6 processor for the 7D2
- the tag "TOP APS-C"

and the list goes on. i completely see how its priced above 6D, even though i would rather see it not get above it. but in 1 year time, when 7D2 is supposedly released, 6D's price will plummet due to its age and.. you know the rest.

Interestingly, except for CF as a difference, your list sounds a just like a comparison between the 5DII and 7D. Which of those was more expensive?

 

[candyman]

It would be missing more than half of the sensor.

and that's the only thing 6D offers. better IQ and ISO. 7D(2) on the other hand:
- FPS
- AF speed, spread and points
- CF
- buffer
- 100% VF and 1x magnification
- more custom functions
- better weather sealing and durability
- (Dual, +?) Digic 6 processor for the 7D2
- the tag "TOP APS-C"

and the list goes on. i completely see how its priced above 6D, even though i would rather see it not get above it. but in 1 year time, when 7D2 is supposedly released, 6D's price will plummet due to its age and.. you know the rest.

Interestingly, except for CF as a difference, your list sounds a just like a comparison between the 5DII and 7D. Which of those was more expensive?

That could have been a marketing trick to push people buying 7D (and many did) to take a chance on more people buying the future (more expensive) update on the 7D?

 

[insanitybeard]

Also, An additional 1-2 stop improvement in ISO performance would be welcome. I don't expect it to match the 5DIII or 6D, but a marginal boost in ISO is important. And, like the autofocus, the camera's weather sealing was very good when released, but it could be upgraded to match at least the 5DIII.

However, Zv is correct in that even four years after introduction, the 7D remains pretty much at the top of the APS-C world. Canon set a high bar with the 7D. Owners are very loyal and want the next upgrade to again set the standards for the industry.

Agree with this and you were bang on the money (as usual) with your earlier post, If I wanted to go full frame and keep the features of the 7D it has to be the 5D III, but it's so much more expensive- in the UK, the 7D can be got for under £1000, but the 5D III is around £2300. For me, that's an enormous difference and not one I can afford or justify at the present time, especially as I would also need to get a 24-105 or 24-70 2.8 II etc as a standard zoom.

Just as a side note, you said the 7D's weathersealing could be improved to match the 5D III, I thought they were on a par with eachother?

 

[greger]

A rumor that a 7D ll will be available the second half of 2014 is just another rumor. That's why we all are here to talk about rumors. Until Canon posts a notice about a 7D ll like they did for 70D I will believe No 7D ll. I think Canon wants the semi pro to go FF, the 6D is a good start, the 5D lll is a great start. Cost and available funds will always be an important factor. Personally I am liking my 7D more and more every time I use it. It'll have to break before I replace it. I wonder if Canon is thinking "If it ain't broke don't fix it!" " or replace it!"

 

[jrista]

It would be missing more than half of the sensor.

and that's the only thing 6D offers. better IQ and ISO. 7D(2) on the other hand:
- FPS
- AF speed, spread and points
- CF
- buffer
- 100% VF and 1x magnification
- more custom functions
- better weather sealing and durability
- (Dual, +?) Digic 6 processor for the 7D2
- the tag "TOP APS-C"

and the list goes on. i completely see how its priced above 6D, even though i would rather see it not get above it. but in 1 year time, when 7D2 is supposedly released, 6D's price will plummet due to its age and.. you know the rest.

Interestingly, except for CF as a difference, your list sounds a just like a comparison between the 5DII and 7D. Which of those was more expensive?

Keep in mind the timeframe. Five years ago FF was much more expensive to manufacture than it is today. The fact that the 6D, still relatively new, sells for as little as $1700, is quite telling here. I am not sure that a comparison of the 5D II and 7D from four to five years ago is good enough to predict the future in the case of the 6D/7DII of next year.

The two cameras are different, for sure...but that does not mean they don't both qualify for the same level of "pro" gear. Functionally, the 7D II (at least as the rumors stand now) sounds like a much more professional, higher grade part than the 6D...regardless of what the numbers may seem to indicate.

 

[Pi]

Keep in mind the timeframe. Five years ago FF was much more expensive to manufacture than it is today. The fact that the 6D, still relatively new, sells for as little as $1700, is quite telling here.

Today's BH prices:

60D: $600 (-1)
6D: $2,000 (-1)

More than three times more expensive.

Years ago, you could by a Rebel only for $600, and I am not even adjusting for inflation. Going back further, I think I paid $800 for my 350D (with the crappy kit lens), several years after it was released.

 

[ahsanford]

It would be missing more than half of the sensor.

and that's the only thing 6D offers. better IQ and ISO. 7D(2) on the other hand:
- FPS
- AF speed, spread and points
- CF
- buffer
- 100% VF and 1x magnification
- more custom functions
- better weather sealing and durability
- (Dual, +?) Digic 6 processor for the 7D2
- the tag "TOP APS-C"

and the list goes on. i completely see how its priced above 6D, even though i would rather see it not get above it. but in 1 year time, when 7D2 is supposedly released, 6D's price will plummet due to its age and.. you know the rest.

Interestingly, except for CF as a difference, your list sounds a just like a comparison between the 5DII and 7D. Which of those was more expensive?

Keep in mind the timeframe. Five years ago FF was much more expensive to manufacture than it is today. The fact that the 6D, still relatively new, sells for as little as $1700, is quite telling here. I am not sure that a comparison of the 5D II and 7D from four to five years ago is good enough to predict the future in the case of the 6D/7DII of next year.

The two cameras are different, for sure...but that does not mean they don't both qualify for the same level of "pro" gear. Functionally, the 7D II (at least as the rumors stand now) sounds like a much more professional, higher grade part than the 6D...regardless of what the numbers may seem to indicate.

Agree completely.

I still see "Not having to buying somewhat expensive non-EF-S standard zoom and comically expensive longer glass" as a huge selling feature that is worth driving up the price of the 7D2.

As much as many folks on this forum believe there is a not-so-subtle attempt by Canon to push all 'gear spenders' into the FF column, isn't there also value in selling a very pricey rig that obviates the need to buy new glass? Clearly, capable shooters would pay a premium to get state of the art gear without having to make the FF plunge.

- A

 

[Loswr]

Keep in mind the timeframe. Five years ago FF was much more expensive to manufacture than it is today. The fact that the 6D, still relatively new, sells for as little as $1700, is quite telling here.

It seems that Canon's fab procedure hasn't changed, at least from what we can tell. Has the cost of silicon wafers come down that much? Or could it be that Canon was reaping very high profit margins on the presumed high cost of a FF sensor, and now they've decided to push more units at a lower profit margin, as an alternative strategy to drive the bottom line?

Just sayin'. Not that I'm cynical, or anything... :

 

[Pi]

I still see "Not having to buying somewhat expensive non-EF-S standard zoom and comically expensive longer glass" as a huge selling feature that is worth driving up the price of the 7D2.

As much as many folks on this forum believe there is a not-so-subtle attempt by Canon to push all 'gear spenders' into the FF column, isn't there also value in selling a very pricey rig that obviates the need to buy new glass?

Not really. If you want to stay with cheap but very good solutions like the 18-55 IS on crop, you cannot find an FF equivalent to that, since Canon stopped the development of the slow EF zooms (still, the really cheap 28-135 can easily beat the more expensive 15-85, http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=116&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=675&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=1). But the "cheap" EF-S zooms on crop come at a price - slower (in eq. terms) and resolve less. Nothing wrong with paying less for a system which offers less but - you get what you pay for.

Same thing with telephoto - you will pay more for the same reach with FF but you will get more. Actually, you do not always pay more: you can get a longer but slower (but the same physical aperture, i.e., equivalent) lens, when available. Or you can get an 1.4 extender.

Going to the more mainstream FL's; with FF, you may end up paying much less for similar performance, and you can get performance (wide open, etc.) that you cannot get with crop at any price. The 135L, for example, performs significantly better on FF than the 85L on crop; the 200/2.8 on FF beats the 135L on crop; the 35/2 IS on FF would beat the 24LII on crop, etc.; and in all those examples, I am comparing lenses allowing (about) the same amount of light, i.e., equivalent ones.

So in many situations, the crop body forces you to buy more expensive glass to get close (but not quite) to what FF can do. This does not mean that there is no place for crop bodies on the market.

 

[jrista]

Keep in mind the timeframe. Five years ago FF was much more expensive to manufacture than it is today. The fact that the 6D, still relatively new, sells for as little as $1700, is quite telling here.

Today's BH prices:

60D: $600 (-1)
6D: $2,000 (-1)

More than three times more expensive.

Years ago, you could by a Rebel only for $600, and I am not even adjusting for inflation. Going back further, I think I paid $800 for my 350D (with the crappy kit lens), several years after it was released.

I am not sure how that is relevant to the part of my answer you quoted. The 60D is an APS-C part, and was never part of either Neuros post I replied to nor my post.

I was explicitly stating that five years ago, manufacturing a FF sensor was much more expensive than it is today, while manufacturing an APS-C sensor hasn't really gotten much cheaper. The drop in cost for FF relative to only a slightly lower cost for APS-C, as well as the fact that you can easily pick up a 6D for around $1700 on sale, would indicate that sensor size is not the primary price driver for these cameras in this bracket these days. A $2000 list price 6D is therefor not necessarily better in any significant way than a $2000 7D II. On the contrary, the 7D II could hypothetically offer far more features, including more professional grade features, than the 6D.

As has been stated frequently before on these forums, especially by Neuro, the sensor is often one of the least important features for many types of photography. As such, why would it be the sole thing that determines how "professional" a professional grade camera is?

 

[jrista]

Keep in mind the timeframe. Five years ago FF was much more expensive to manufacture than it is today. The fact that the 6D, still relatively new, sells for as little as $1700, is quite telling here.

It seems that Canon's fab procedure hasn't changed, at least from what we can tell. Has the cost of silicon wafers come down that much? Or could it be that Canon was reaping very high profit margins on the presumed high cost of a FF sensor, and now they've decided to push more units at a lower profit margin, as an alternative strategy to drive the bottom line?

Just sayin'. Not that I'm cynical, or anything... :

I do believe 300mm wafers have come down in cost. I remember them still having some challenges five to six years ago with defect rates on them (this is pretty agnostic of industry...not specific to sensor fabrication). It is obviously a less serious problem for tiny chips like GPUs and CPUs or other ICs. Growing the wafer crystals has become more refined over the years, in no small part to some of the advancements made while trying to perfect the process for growing 450mm wafer crystals (which, as far as I know, has still not been taken up by any IC manufacturing industry...there is apparently a very high initial cost to jumping that has to be recouped, something no manufacturer seems willing to deal with as of yet).

As for Canon's real margins, honestly can't say there. I suspect they incurred the same kinds of high costs initially to move to a 300mm wafer, just like everyone else...however once those costs were recouped, it is entirely likely they were selling the 5D II at significant margins. That wouldn't be mutually exclusive with any drop in price for fabricating on 300mm wafers, however. Given that it is Canon, I'm sure they raked in the dough for as long as they could. ;P

 

[Pi]

As has been stated frequently before on these forums, especially by Neuro, the sensor is often one of the least important features for many types of photography.

I am not sure what Neuro actually said, but the fact is that the sensor size (not necessarily mp count or DR, or noise) is one of the most important factors in many types of photography, excluding macro and telephoto. To be more precise, it is one of the most important factors when you care, but then the same applies to lens choices, smartphone cameras vs. more serious ones, MF/LF vs. 35mm, etc.

 

[dtaylor]

I am not sure what Neuro actually said, but the fact is that the sensor size (not necessarily mp count or DR, or noise) is one of the most important factors in many types of photography, excluding macro and telephoto. To be more precise, it is one of the most important factors when you care, but then the same applies to lens choices, smartphone cameras vs. more serious ones, MF/LF vs. 35mm, etc.

Nope. At this stage in the game sensor size matters at high ISO and if you want to use certain lenses at their intended focal lengths. FF clearly has an advantage in low light photography, astrophotography, and in fast/wide primes and T/S lenses. People will cite DoF as a FF advantage but it cuts both ways.

APS-C can have an advantage in size (though this isn't really the case with the 7D line) and cost for a given level of lens IQ and/or zoom range.

Aside from that 35mm vs. APS-C sensor size is a non-issue. The vast majority of photographs can be produced with either.

 

[jrista]

As has been stated frequently before on these forums, especially by Neuro, the sensor is often one of the least important features for many types of photography.

I am not sure what Neuro actually said, but the fact is that the sensor size (not necessarily mp count or DR, or noise) is one of the most important factors in many types of photography, excluding macro and telephoto. To be more precise, it is one of the most important factors when you care, but then the same applies to lens choices, smartphone cameras vs. more serious ones, MF/LF vs. 35mm, etc.

Sure, of course the converse is true (I never stated otherwise). My point is that the fact that the 6D has a larger sensor than the 7D II will likely have does not intrinsically put it at a higher or lower ranking on any hypothetical scale. They are different tools for different jobs. For those who need a FF sensor because it IS the most important factor, the 6D and 5D III offer excellent options. For those who need an APS-C sensor in a camera with high FPS and excellent AF, the 7D II would, for them, be the better choice than the 6D for sure, and in some cases even better than the 5D III, and certainly a far more accessible option than the 1D X (even at a price point of $2500!)

I'm just trying to debunk the notion that the 6D, simply because of its model number and sensor size, therefor must be better or higher ranked or more professional than the 7D line. I would put the two at an equal level or tier of professional grade DSLR equipment, designed for different use cases and photography types, with feature sets to match.

 

[dtaylor]

So in many situations, the crop body forces you to buy more expensive glass to get close (but not quite) to what FF can do. This does not mean that there is no place for crop bodies on the market.

Only when you force absurd rules of "equality" on the comparison as you did in all of your examples. I roll my eyes and laugh when FF fans do this in forums. "Oh, I own a 135 f/2L so you would just HAVE to buy an 85 f/1.2L to be EQUIVALENT to me." No one is trying to be "equivalent" to FF down to the precise mm / subject distance / field depth. No one shoots like that and no one cares. Do FF users buy and adjust their lenses to be "equivalent" to MF shooters? LF? Such silliness is reserved for forum debates, not real life.

A 135 f/2L might be better then an 85 f/1.2L wide open, but it's not better then itself on FF vs. crop. (At least not after a touch more sharpening on crop which is true of all lenses but also a non issue.) "But DoF!!!" Yeah, usually I want a little more DoF, not less. 9/10 I find the shallow DoF on FF to be a frustration and not an advantage. And if you understand bokeh, you understand why there will be little to no difference in background blur in many situations. (Hint: for detail well outside the plane of focus the physical aperture size is the driving factor, not the format or DoF.)

Same thing for comparing one lens at f/8 and one at f/5. No one shoots like that. No one stands in broad daylight and thinks "on FF I would shoot f/8, but I want the EXACT same DoF on crop so I better shoot f/5." It's insulting to even suggest such nonsense.

There are areas where a given combination of lens and IQ is cheaper on crop (i.e. UWA zoom) and areas where it's cheaper on FF (i.e. fast "normal" prime). For most uses crop is cheaper overall with equal performance, though there are areas where FF clearly has an IQ advantage.

 

[Pi]

So in many situations, the crop body forces you to buy more expensive glass to get close (but not quite) to what FF can do. This does not mean that there is no place for crop bodies on the market.

Only when you force absurd rules of "equality" on the comparison as you did in all of your examples. I roll my eyes and laugh when FF fans do this in forums. "Oh, I own a 135 f/2L so you would just HAVE to buy an 85 f/1.2L to be EQUIVALENT to me." No one is trying to be "equivalent" to FF down to the precise mm / subject distance / field depth. No one shoots like that and no one cares. Do FF users buy and adjust their lenses to be "equivalent" to MF shooters? LF? Such silliness is reserved for forum debates, not real life.

A 135 f/2L might be better then an 85 f/1.2L wide open, but it's not better then itself on FF vs. crop. (At least not after a touch more sharpening on crop which is true of all lenses but also a non issue.) "But DoF!!!" Yeah, usually I want a little more DoF, not less. 9/10 I find the shallow DoF on FF to be a frustration and not an advantage. And if you understand bokeh, you understand why there will be little to no difference in background blur in many situations. (Hint: for detail well outside the plane of focus the physical aperture size is the driving factor, not the format or DoF.)

Same thing for comparing one lens at f/8 and one at f/5. No one shoots like that. No one stands in broad daylight and thinks "on FF I would shoot f/8, but I want the EXACT same DoF on crop so I better shoot f/5." It's insulting to even suggest such nonsense.

There are areas where a given combination of lens and IQ is cheaper on crop (i.e. UWA zoom) and areas where it's cheaper on FF (i.e. fast "normal" prime). For most uses crop is cheaper overall with equal performance, though there are areas where FF clearly has an IQ advantage.

This thread was more civil before you got involved. Please keep your emotions for yourself.

 

[Pi]

I am not sure what Neuro actually said, but the fact is that the sensor size (not necessarily mp count or DR, or noise) is one of the most important factors in many types of photography, excluding macro and telephoto. To be more precise, it is one of the most important factors when you care, but then the same applies to lens choices, smartphone cameras vs. more serious ones, MF/LF vs. 35mm, etc.

Nope. At this stage in the game sensor size matters at high ISO and if you want to use certain lenses at their intended focal lengths. FF clearly has an advantage in low light photography, astrophotography, and in fast/wide primes and T/S lenses. People will cite DoF as a FF advantage but it cuts both ways.

DOF cuts one way only. When you want to go past, say, f/22 on DOF, diffraction limits resolution so much that you do not gain anything. There is no limit of how deep DOF you can get with any format. There is a limit however, with the available lenses, how shallow DOF you can get.

APS-C can have an advantage in size (though this isn't really the case with the 7D line) and cost for a given level of lens IQ and/or zoom range.

Actually, the cost benefit comes at a price: IQ. Most people would get more IQ that they want or need, no doubt about that. But APS-C is rarely a cost-effective way to get the same IQ, when this is possible, except in some specialized cases like macro and extreme telephoto, maybe. It is a great value, though.

 

[Pi]

Sure, of course the converse is true (I never stated otherwise). My point is that the fact that the 6D has a larger sensor than the 7D II will likely have does not intrinsically put it at a higher or lower ranking on any hypothetical scale.

So we actually agree. I said next several times, not above or below.

For those who need an APS-C sensor in a camera with high FPS and excellent AF, the 7D II would, for them, be the better choice than the 6D for sure, and in some cases even better than the 5D III, and certainly a far more accessible option than the 1D X (even at a price point of $2500!)

Not so sure about the AF. The 7D has more advanced but less accurate AF (aside from tracking and advanced capabilities) than the 5D2. Format differences play role here, too. In equivalent terms, the 7D's AF is f/4.5 (!).

 

[mr few shots]

<div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/08/eos-7d-mark-ii-information-cr2/\"></glusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/08/eos-7d-mark-ii-information-cr2/\">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Canon EOS 7D Mark II


</strong>We’re told there is zero chance of a 7D Mark II in 2013. The camera is currently slated for release in the second half of 2014. We’re told the final specifications of the camera are far from complete, but it will have the same 20.2mp sensor as the EOS 70D. As well as the Dual Pixel AF and built-in GPS. At present, it will not have wifi, though this could change for the final product.</p>
<p>This all seems very plausible. I would think Canon wants to see what kind of success they have with the revamped xxD line. The 70D looks like an APS-C winner spec wise, we’ll have to wait and see how people feel about it in the real world.</p>
<p>The same person also said a new lower end camera would be released in the first half of 2014. Nothing was mentioned about the fabled big megapixel camera that Canon is working on.</p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>

not the best news if true
I was hanging out for a 7D II being released this year in the hope of notable improvements as I liked the 1.6 crop effect and pixel density and the fps is higher than my 5D III
But it is the ISO performance that would have to improve for me to warrant buying one as I tend to shoot wildlife and good ISO performance is essential when unable to afford the big fast lenses and having used a friends one I have been a little bit deterred by the current ISO performance although it is not bad by any means I would just prefer better so bring on a 7D II with improved ISO and 10 fps wouldn't be sneezed at either.
I am a patient man though