EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]

[Lee Jay]

"Very good ISO performance"

Ahhh. Now I can rest easy

Did they also say: "no more noisy blues skies at base ISO"?

There's noise in the light itself. It's impossible to have a noise-free image. With the capture of lots of light and the application of noise reduction in software, it's possible to have the appearance of noise-free images, but that's all.

 

[Ruined]

Needs to have either joystick or touchscreen (or both), and preferably articulating screen for abnormal shots. Wifi would be nice too if it is fast.

 

[iam2nd]

I've been saving to have a 1DX as a replacement/second body for my 1D Mark IV. But looking at the alleged 7D MKII specs, it matches or exceeds the 1DMKIV performance in many areas at a drastic price savings.

I am fully aware of the differences not only in performance but also in durability and usability between the Pro and pro-sumer line, but this body would give me options for my upgrade path. I am eagerly awaiting CR2 specs on this one.

 

[roadrunner]

Good grief. EVFs are years, if not decades away from being usable in high-speed and/or low-light situations, plus we need a good factor of 4 increase in battery performance before we go that way.

A bit of an overreaction? He didn't suggest building a space elevator.

Space elevators are at least possible. EVF as good as OVFs are not possible, ever.

At least you confirmed suspicions of an over reaction =/

Who knows what will be possible in the next decade or so. I'll agree that it's not going ot happen for a few more years, but there's no way of knowing what will be possible in 10+ years, especially with anything technology related.

 

[transpo1]

Innovative Video features that would be useful.

1. Official Canon RAW video DNG
2. Focus peaking
3. Zebras or False Color

+ everything video oriented the 5DIII has.

Those are the things that would make me buy this camera next year. Yes, I am a video-oriented shooter.

 

[traveller]

Good grief. EVFs are years, if not decades away from being usable in high-speed and/or low-light situations, plus we need a good factor of 4 increase in battery performance before we go that way.

A bit of an overreaction? He didn't suggest building a space elevator.

Space elevators are at least possible. EVF as good as OVFs are not possible, ever.

I have to admit that I wasn't overly enamoured with the EVF on the A99 compared to the viewfinder on my 5D MkIII (though I only tried it indoors and it might perform better in natural light), but this doesn't alter the fact that they are probably the future for most cameras. EVFs have come on in leaps and bounds over the last few years and I see no reason why they will not in the next few. This is how I see the pros and cons of EVFs, in descending order of significance:

EVF Pros:

• allow a simpler and cheaper camera design by eliminating expensive to assemble moving parts and removing the requirement for seperate AF and metering sensors
• offer a larger and brighter image than most APS-C viewfinders
• allow more freedom with lens design by allowing placement of rear elements further towards sensor
  [*]allow more shooting information to be displayed, e.g. magnified focus, focus peaking, zebras & real-time histogram
  

EVF Cons:

• image lag
• contrast range
• resolution
  

Of all these, the cost reason will be why manufacturers will eventually move to EVFs across their whole range, except maybe their flagship sports/action cameras. As the differences between the two become less relevant to a greater number of buyers, not to move to a mirrorless design would leave a manufacturer producing increasingly expensive niche cameras (Leica?). Whilst this may be a direction for another manufacturer, it won't work for the market leaders that base their success upon sales volume (i.e. currently Canon and Nikon).

 

[Lee Jay]

Good grief. EVFs are years, if not decades away from being usable in high-speed and/or low-light situations, plus we need a good factor of 4 increase in battery performance before we go that way.

A bit of an overreaction? He didn't suggest building a space elevator.

Space elevators are at least possible. EVF as good as OVFs are not possible, ever.

At least you confirmed suspicions of an over reaction =/

Who knows what will be possible in the next decade or so. I'll agree that it's not going ot happen for a few more years, but there's no way of knowing what will be possible in 10+ years, especially with anything technology related.

How are you going to be zero lag and zero power usage?

 

[Lee Jay]

EVF Pros:

• allow a simpler and cheaper camera design by eliminating expensive to assemble moving parts and removing the requirement for seperate AF and metering sensors

EVFs are more expensive than OVFs, if the EVF is decent.

• offer a larger and brighter image than most APS-C viewfinders
• allow more freedom with lens design by allowing placement of rear elements further towards sensor

This isn't an advantage of an EVF, it's an advantage of removing the mirror box, and only if your entire lens system changes.

• allow more shooting information to be displayed, e.g. magnified focus, focus peaking, zebras & real-time histogram

I consider that a disadvantage, as it's distracting. I turn it all off on my EVF cameras. The only advantage is for manual focus situations.

[/list]

EVF Cons:

• image lag
• contrast range
• resolution
  

• 
  Zero power draw as well.

Of all these, the cost reason will be why manufacturers will eventually move to EVFs across their whole range, except maybe their flagship sports/action cameras.

Since that's an invalid reason, I don't see why they'd bother to make everything else worse.

I'd like a hybrid EVF/OVF using the EVF for video and manual focus situations only.

 

[MichaelHodges]

"Very good ISO performance"

Ahhh. Now I can rest easy

Did they also say: "no more noisy blues skies at base ISO"?

The noise in the 7D reminds me of the classic Panasonic all-in-one super zooms. But yeah, terrible blue channel noise at ISO 100. I'd much rather see them focus on low ISO dynamic range and noise than ISO 64000 jpeg noise. Any addition of megapixels to the 1.6x sensor means I won't be picking one up. 18 is already too many.

 

[MichaelHodges]

"Very good ISO performance"

Ahhh. Now I can rest easy

Did they also say: "no more noisy blues skies at base ISO"?

There's noise in the light itself. It's impossible to have a noise-free image.

Logical fallacy.

 

[Lee Jay]

"Very good ISO performance"

Ahhh. Now I can rest easy

Did they also say: "no more noisy blues skies at base ISO"?

There's noise in the light itself. It's impossible to have a noise-free image.

Logical fallacy.

Huh?

SNR = sqrt (photons collected). To make SNR infinity you have to make photons collected infinity.

 

[Lee Jay]

The noise in the 7D reminds me of the classic Panasonic all-in-one super zooms. But yeah, terrible blue channel noise at ISO 100. I'd much rather see them focus on low ISO dynamic range and noise than ISO 64000 jpeg noise. Any addition of megapixels to the 1.6x sensor means I won't be picking one up. 18 is already too many.

Why? More pixels = less noise and more detail.

 

[Botts]

The noise in the 7D reminds me of the classic Panasonic all-in-one super zooms. But yeah, terrible blue channel noise at ISO 100. I'd much rather see them focus on low ISO dynamic range and noise than ISO 64000 jpeg noise. Any addition of megapixels to the 1.6x sensor means I won't be picking one up. 18 is already too many.

Why? More pixels = less noise and more detail.

There is a school of thought, somewhat based in science, that bigger pixels equal less noise and/or higher sensitivity.

There are engineering realities which can nullify, mitigate, or amplify the above however.

 

[Pi]

"Very good ISO performance"

Ahhh. Now I can rest easy

Did they also say: "no more noisy blues skies at base ISO"?

There's noise in the light itself. It's impossible to have a noise-free image. With the capture of lots of light and the application of noise reduction in software, it's possible to have the appearance of noise-free images, but that's all.

Of course, there is noise in the image as well but you know well what I meant. The blue channel of the 7D is much noisier than the signal itself, and much noisier than on any Nikon.

If you have to be picky, there is no such thing as a noise-free image of the physical object but there is such thing (theoretically) as noise free way to capture what hits the sensor, at least photosite by photosite; and then there is no theoretical and possibly a practical limit how close you can get.

 

[Pi]

There is a school of thought, somewhat based in science, that bigger pixels equal less noise and/or higher sensitivity.

Did you mean to post this to this thread: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17775.msg328453#msg328453?

 

[MichaelHodges]

"Very good ISO performance"

Ahhh. Now I can rest easy

Did they also say: "no more noisy blues skies at base ISO"?

There's noise in the light itself. It's impossible to have a noise-free image.

Logical fallacy.

Huh?

SNR = sqrt (photons collected). To make SNR infinity you have to make photons collected infinity.

You dismissed his concern about the 7D's noise with a logical fallacy.

 

[Lee Jay]

There is a school of thought, somewhat based in science, that bigger pixels equal less noise and/or higher sensitivity.

That school of thought it wrong in all but exceptionally photon-starved situations (ISOs in the 6 and 7 digits).

 

[Lee Jay]

"Very good ISO performance"

Ahhh. Now I can rest easy

Did they also say: "no more noisy blues skies at base ISO"?

There's noise in the light itself. It's impossible to have a noise-free image.

Logical fallacy.

Huh?

SNR = sqrt (photons collected). To make SNR infinity you have to make photons collected infinity.

You dismissed his concern about the 7D's noise with a logical fallacy.

The 7D's sky noise is present in every camera of every size to varying degrees.

 

[Pi]

The 7D's sky noise is present in every camera of every size to varying degrees.

Those degrees vary quite a lot from camera to camera, which was the point of my remark, and I am sure that you know that.

 

[MichaelHodges]

"Very good ISO performance"

Ahhh. Now I can rest easy

Did they also say: "no more noisy blues skies at base ISO"?

There's noise in the light itself. It's impossible to have a noise-free image.

Logical fallacy.

Huh?

SNR = sqrt (photons collected). To make SNR infinity you have to make photons collected infinity.

You dismissed his concern about the 7D's noise with a logical fallacy.

The 7D's sky noise is present in every camera of every size to varying degrees.

Let's just cut the logical fallacies and address the poster's 7D noise concerns. Personally, as a 7D owner, I agree with him that the noise in blue skies at low ISO is unacceptable for a DSLR in this range. The only true upgrade path at this time to remedy such issues seems to be full frame.