EOS 7D Mark II Talk [CR1]

[GMCPhotographics]

Improved high ISO video performance would be very welcome. 7d footage at 1600 and above just looks horrible. I understand how the smaller pixel size on APS-C sensors is a limitation, but it would be SOO nice to have a Canon crop at least equal to just the Mark II as far video ISO performance.

Would it be possible to create a ~24mp APS-C sensor (so lets say pixel size of: 4µm) but use larger pixels (something closer to full frame size: 6.4µm.....or even bigger like 8µm) for the pixels designated for video, (resulting in AWESOME low-light performance)? Or does having different pixel sizes on the same sensor simply not work for whatever reason?

And I can think of a ton of photo applications for such technology as well. I'm one of those weirdos who would love a 8-10MP camera with ridiculous pixel size and thus great high ISO performance. Plus getting 14fps+ should be a breeze with that image size.

Ugh, the "large pixel" myth rears its ugly head again. Lower resolution sensors gain you nothing but a smaller file size. Full frame sensors are better in low light because of increased total surface area.

You don't seem to understand the relationship between pixel size and signal to noise ratio. All other factors equal, larger pixels collect more light than smaller ones, thus giving them better noise performance. It's not a "myth," it's physics.

It's true if everything else is equal or the same. Nikon have gained a bit of DR by placing their D/A converted earlier in the on chip processing path than Canon which is wjy they ahve a little more DR at the moment, but it's not a huge difference. Processing, chip design and on chip NR all have an effect on iso noise performance. But yes, the general rule is smaller the pixels, the greater the noise.
But here' the irony, the physical size of the pixel is the same for all DSLR's....it's the size of the bin which it sits in that collects the quality of light. This bin (with the pixel sitting at the bottom) is capped off with a micro lens which more directs light to it. Once upon a time, the iso noise was controlled by the size of the microlenses. Every time there was a jump in MP, Canon would make the micro lenses proportionally bigger to equalise the iso noise...then Nikon spoiled it all and used the largest possible (gapless) on a full frame 12 mp sensor in the D3...thus shooting themselves in the foot for a short term iso advantage. Once the public got used to that level of iso performance...they demanded al the time...even from cameras with twice the resolution, whihc has caused the entire processing path to be re-designed to extract the maximum performance. I doubt that there will be much increase in MP goign forwards....I think the Nikon D800 has proved that point. More MP means more resolution at low iso values...but really poor iso performance at high iso values. Canon is wise sticking to the ~20mp region for a while. It's the best res / iso ratio.
If we consider the slight difference in iso abilities between the 1Dx, 6D and 5DIII...it's clear that it's purely the quantity of MP which is dictating the iso abilities. Slightly lower mp = slightly improved Iso performance.
If we consider the abilities of the 1Dx, it's quite extraordinary. 18mp, 12 fps and iso 6400 is SO clean!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

A 7DII with slight megapixel increase, awesome high ISO, AF system from 5Dmk III and same build/FPS as the current 7D...a lot of wildlife and sports shooters would be pretty pleased I think!

The problem with the current 7D (which I discovered quite early on...I was an early adoptor and then defector) is with the sensor not the rest of the camera. In fact it's a fantastic camera, let down by it's mediocre sensor performance. 18mp is fine, no issues there. But I found a lack of micro contrast, a certain milkyness and softness at 100% which I've not seen in any other Canon DSLR. I needed to selectively sharpen it's images. I concluded that this was due to an over active Aliasing filter to smooth out video footage.
I found it's iso performance quite poor too. I was seeing a stop and a half loss against a 5DII, even at Iso 400 I saw a lot of noise.
While I liked it's handling, 8fps and great AF system (for then), I found it's IQ and sensor to be lacking. Maybe this will improve with the mkII..I hope so, this camera deserves a better sensor.

 

[AvTvM]

CarlMiller is right:

All other factors equal, larger pixels collect more light than smaller ones, thus giving them better noise performance. It's not a "myth," it's physics.

However in real life, "all other factors are rarely ever equal".
In real life, Nikon/Sony (currently) have simply better sensors than Canon. Twice the resolution and yet significantly better dynamic range - on the same sensor surface area. As nicely demonstrated in the chart posted by Canonpekka.

D800 and 1dx DR/iso

Canon needs to step up image quality offered, rather than just optimizing video features in its stills cameras. Nikon D7100 is too low a benchmark for a current 7D II. It needs to do even better, to be worthwhile.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Very happy if canon 7D MkII will come with a swiveling LCD!! Think a swiveling LCD will help lot in DSLR Videography!!

Not going to happen... destroys the purpose of indestructibility and weatherproofing.
If you have the swivel open and you drop the DSLR, its going to break.
Too many creases between the swivel parts that make it less waterproof.

If you like swivel screen so much stick with the 70D.

Canon have gone on record to say that they can't make a swivelling LCD screen which is robust enough to be classified as "Professional Grade". So we won't be seeing one on a 1D or 1X series.

 

[Don Haines]

Not going to happen... destroys the purpose of indestructibility and weatherproofing.
If you have the swivel open and you drop the DSLR, its going to break.
Too many creases between the swivel parts that make it less waterproof.

If you like swivel screen so much stick with the 70D.

As someone who has a 60D with 70,000 shots on it, and who takes the camera hiking and canoeing (not a pampered life), let me make a few comments about tilt-swivel screens....

Waterproofing - the 60D, with a tilt-swivel screen, is surprisingly well sealed. According to canon, the level of sealing is supposed to be the same as a 5D3, not as good as a 1Dx or 7D, but better than a 6D or the rebels.... You do not have to make the joints on a tilt-swivel mechanism waterproof, just the ends....

Protection - turn the screen around and it is protected from scratches... Mine is still scratch free, something which can not be said for my friends 5D2.... And her camera is less used than mine and has seen more gentle use.

Fragility - my local camera store says that they have seen more DSLR's with broken fixed screens than articulated screens (all manufacturers, not just Canon).... Perhaps it is because the "lower end" cameras get tossed instead if being fixed, but however you look at it, it is not a slam-dunk....perhaps transportation of a camera is more dangerous than usage of the camera?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

The real fact is that EXMOR sensor has better DR up to ISO 400, and will match DR from ISO 800. I need the best possible image at ISO 1600 and above. I am satisfied with low ISO Canon, although current 7D needs a major improvement in this area with his successor.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

The real fact is that EXMOR sensor has better DR up to ISO 400, and will match DR from ISO 800. I need the best possible image at ISO 1600 and above. I am satisfied with low ISO Canon, although current 7D needs a major improvement in this area with his successor.

Then Canon must have a goal which is to improve theirs APS sensors to meet Toshiba and Sonys APS-C high iso reproduction and resolution

With all due respect, I disagree with the arguments you present. Everyone who saw images of the real world know that D7100 has noticeably better image than D5200 in all aspects, but DXO says otherwise. I will not even address the issues about how DXO is biased with different camera brands. Yes, 7D is already old lady and her replacement will be much better in noise and DR. Meanwhile 70D showed timid advances in these areas. But I tell you that even so I would choose 70D over D7100 because their images are more natural and pleasant at ISO 1600 and above for my look. If I wanted to shoot primarily at ISO 100, this time I could choose Nikon, but I do not remember when was the last time I used ISO 100 on a job.

 

[Loswr]

This is an urban legend, of course you can make a waterproof swivel screen, man has been to the moon.

Sure, one can be made. Panasonic's ToughBook convertible tablet has a water/dust resistant swivel display. The real question is, can Canon make a swivel LCD water resistant and robust enough with consideration for impact on production cost and/or sale price?

Then Canon must have a goal which is to improve theirs APS sensors to meet Toshiba and Sonys APS-C high iso reproduction and resolution.

Why?

Canon's real goal is to sell cameras, and to sell more cameras than the competition. Despite being 'behind' in sensor performance compared to Exmor sensors for the past several APS-C dSLR generations, Canon continues to outsell Nikon (and Sony remains a niche player). What lesson can Canon learn from this? That the performance of Canon's internally-produced sensors is good enough to support market leading sales. As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

The real fact is that EXMOR sensor has better DR up to ISO 400, and will match DR from ISO 800. I need the best possible image at ISO 1600 and above. I am satisfied with low ISO Canon, although current 7D needs a major improvement in this area with his successor.

Then Canon must have a goal which is to improve theirs APS sensors to meet Toshiba and Sonys APS-C high iso reproduction and resolution

With all due respect, I disagree with the arguments you present. Everyone who saw images of the real world know that D7100 has noticeably better image than D5200 in all aspects, but DXO says otherwise. I will not even address the issues about how DXO is biased with different camera brands. Yes, 7D is already old lady and her replacement will be much better in noise and DR. Meanwhile 70D showed timid advances in these areas. But I tell you that even so I would choose 70D over D7100 because their images are more natural and pleasant at ISO 1600 and above for my look. If I wanted to shoot primarily at ISO 100, this time I could choose Nikon, but I do not remember when was the last time I used ISO 100 on a job.

Do they, say otherwise, DXO ??
My statements was, more pixels are not bad for anything, regardless we are discussing DR, high iso

In the case of ISO 100, more pixel means better sharpness. When it comes to ISO 6400 and above, even DXO and their "mysterious" scores not say that more pixels mean better noise and DR.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

This is an urban legend, of course you can make a waterproof swivel screen, man has been to the moon.

Sure, one can be made. Panasonic's ToughBook convertible tablet has a water/dust resistant swivel display. The real question is, can Canon make a swivel LCD water resistant and robust enough with consideration for impact on production cost and/or sale price?

Then Canon must have a goal which is to improve theirs APS sensors to meet Toshiba and Sonys APS-C high iso reproduction and resolution.

Why?

Canon's real goal is to sell cameras, and to sell more cameras than the competition. Despite being 'behind' in sensor performance compared to Exmor sensors for the past several APS-C dSLR generations, Canon continues to outsell Nikon (and Sony remains a niche player). What lesson can Canon learn from this? That the performance of Canon's internally-produced sensors is good enough to support market leading sales. As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

it sounds like Nokia here in Finland, we all knows what happens when they are not up to date

It seems that Nokia has the best camera sensor with 41 megapixel. Only because of that, they will dominate the mobile phone market? If you depend on DXO MARK, Nokia Lumia 1020 should score higher than a Canon Rebel, but I do not give a damn about DXO MARK.

 

[AvTvM]

it sounds like Nokia here in Finland, we all knows what happens when they are not up to date

+100!

I will definitely skip the Canon 7D II ... irrespective of when Canon finally releases it and what its specs may be.

Compact, affordable FF-sensored mirrorless digital cameras are almost here. Not from Canon though ... oO
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-hot-first-full-size-images-of-the-a7-and-a7r-cameras-with-lenses/

 

[mkabi]

Not going to happen... destroys the purpose of indestructibility and weatherproofing.
If you have the swivel open and you drop the DSLR, its going to break.
Too many creases between the swivel parts that make it less waterproof.

This is an urban legend, of course you can make a waterproof swivel screen, man has been to the moon.

And the "it might break if open" is like "you must not use a flash on a hotshoe, it will break if dropped" or "only use p&s with retractable lens, a lens on a dslr will break"... the swivel screen only on the 60d/70d and not on 7d is because 7d is older, and might not on 7d2 because of product differentiation and people believe this legend. Furthermore, you'll usually use the swivel screen when on tripod, and it makes a great screen *protector* when turned inwards.

Yes, and we have figured out how to travel through time too. I mean... man has been to the moon back in 1969, its been 44 years since then.... I'm sure the time machine was discovered, what 3 years later? And, what about those flying cars.... I own like 3 of those... I transformed my DeLorean into a flying time machine.

External flash are add-ons, have you seen a magnesium alloy flash? They know that it will break.... thats why they are made of plastic.

Even lenses are add-ons too.... some more durable than others.... you can't compare a 50 1.8 II vs 50 1.4 vs 50 1.2.... which do you think will break after one drop, after multiple drops, etc.?

Ultimately, you have to ask the question... why magnesium alloy body? Or waterproofing?
Why does anyone need that crap? The majority are cheapos that want everything for as little as possible and if the majority doesn't need magnesium alloy or waterproofing because they are going to use it indoors away from water and pools, and they aren't in the middle of a war or anything... it should be alright, right?
Do we serve the majority or the minority? Lets say 10% is the minority and the other 90% is the majority.
So product differentiation came along to help address these issues.

 

[Don Haines]

And the "it might break if open" is like "you must not use a flash on a hotshoe, it will break if dropped"

Actually..... The base of a flash is designed to break off if too much stress is placed on it.... this is to protect the camera's hotshoe. I have not done this myself, but if you mount a large lens on the camera and try to pick it up by the flash, the base of the flash will break off.... too much stress...

 

[Marsu42]

Ultimately, you have to ask the question... why magnesium alloy body? Or waterproofing?

Why indeed? A full-lmag body is more likely to crack if dropped than a more flexible plastic body which will bonce, at least that's what I've heard on CR from people having dropped both... and I can also state that the "plastic" 60d is surprisingly sturdy, if anything will break it'll be the lens or a lcd, swivel or not...

... and waterproofing: No eos camera is waterproof, try diving with a 1dx. It's just different levels of water resistance, and I'm sure before a well built swivel screen breaks the water has leaked into the camera in different places. Today I left my 6d at home to shoot mushroom macros, because the 60d has a swivel screen and I'd rather loose a bit of iq @iso100 than lie in the mud looking at the display for the whole day.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

This is an urban legend, of course you can make a waterproof swivel screen, man has been to the moon.

Sure, one can be made. Panasonic's ToughBook convertible tablet has a water/dust resistant swivel display. The real question is, can Canon make a swivel LCD water resistant and robust enough with consideration for impact on production cost and/or sale price?

Then Canon must have a goal which is to improve theirs APS sensors to meet Toshiba and Sonys APS-C high iso reproduction and resolution.

Why?

Canon's real goal is to sell cameras, and to sell more cameras than the competition. Despite being 'behind' in sensor performance compared to Exmor sensors for the past several APS-C dSLR generations, Canon continues to outsell Nikon (and Sony remains a niche player). What lesson can Canon learn from this? That the performance of Canon's internally-produced sensors is good enough to support market leading sales. As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

it sounds like Nokia here in Finland, we all knows what happens when they are not up to date

It seems that Nokia has the best camera sensor with 41 megapixel. Only because of that, they will dominate the mobile phone market? If you depend on DXO MARK, Nokia Lumia 1020 should score higher than a Canon Rebel, but I do not give a damn about DXO MARK.

I do not understand your argument, Nokia produces no own sensors, Canon does and they are behind in the competision

Nikon also does not manufacture the sensors from their cameras, but I must admit that they offer great quality at low ISO. That does not change the fact that at high ISO, Nikon does not have the same advantage. In fact the image quality depends on the set =sensor+electronic circuits+signal processing+lens. It turns out that the set mentioned above has advantages at the white side of the force (Canon) at least ISO 1600 or higher.

 

[unfocused]

...Canon's real goal is to sell cameras, and to sell more cameras than the competition. Despite being 'behind' in sensor performance compared to Exmor sensors for the past several APS-C dSLR generations, Canon continues to outsell Nikon (and Sony remains a niche player). What lesson can Canon learn from this? That the performance of Canon's internally-produced sensors is good enough to support market leading sales. As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

This is something gearheads never understand. "Best" almost never wins in the marketplace. "Good enough" almost always wins. The iPhone isn't the best smartphone, but it's good enough. Windows wasn't the best operating system, but it was good enough. VHS wasn't the best video technology, but it was good enough. The gasoline-powered internal combustion engine wasn't the best engine, but it was good enough. The list goes on and on.

Heck, Canon was never the "best." When I bought my Canon F1 in the 1970s, it wasn't the best camera system. Among SLRs Nikon was considered the best and among 35mm cameras generally, Leica was the best. But, through shrewd marketing and perseverance, Canon overcame it's competitors and became the market leader. Superiority for the sake of superiority has never been Canon's objective. They grew to market dominance by providing a "good enough" system that balances cost and quality. Don't expect them to abandon that winning strategy just because gear geeks are upset about an irrelevant, marginal difference in lab tests.

 

[Don Haines]

...Canon's real goal is to sell cameras, and to sell more cameras than the competition. Despite being 'behind' in sensor performance compared to Exmor sensors for the past several APS-C dSLR generations, Canon continues to outsell Nikon (and Sony remains a niche player). What lesson can Canon learn from this? That the performance of Canon's internally-produced sensors is good enough to support market leading sales. As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

This is something gearheads never understand. "Best" almost never wins in the marketplace. "Good enough" almost always wins. The iPhone isn't the best smartphone, but it's good enough. Windows wasn't the best operating system, but it was good enough. VHS wasn't the best video technology, but it was good enough. The gasoline-powered internal combustion engine wasn't the best engine, but it was good enough. The list goes on and on.

Heck, Canon was never the "best." When I bought my Canon F1 in the 1970s, it wasn't the best camera system. Among SLRs Nikon was considered the best and among 35mm cameras generally, Leica was the best. But, through shrewd marketing and perseverance, Canon overcame it's competitors and became the market leader. Superiority for the sake of superiority has never been Canon's objective. They grew to market dominance by providing a "good enough" system that balances cost and quality. Don't expect them to abandon that winning strategy just because gear geeks are upset about an irrelevant, marginal difference in lab tests.

+1
"The best" rarely gets purchased... "The best that I can afford" and "this meets my needs" are the two big sellers... That's why there are a lot more 5D's out there than 1DX's and that's why Rebels outsell the rest of the Canon DSLR lineup...

 

[9VIII]

While the original foundation of the company was (is?) to copy the best and make it affordable, I think the recent (20ish years) dominance of Canon is due to their focus on the interaction between the user and the camera.
It has been said that their success, even to this day, is largely due to the fast and wholesale adoption of autofocus in the early 90's; a feature that doesn't change the quality of the image at all, it just gets the camera to do something for you.
Under ideal conditions Image Stabilization doesn't have any affect on the image either, and Digital was actually detrimental to image quality for a while, but highly desirable from the user end. Now look at dual pixel AF, they could have done a bunch of different things with extra pixels, but of all those things they chose to use them to improve live view, what on this forum is usually considered to be a fairly obscure function.

The bottom line really is a fine line between high end and mass appeal though.
When I purchased my first camera in 2006 (a high end point and shoot), my decision process was a mixture of common opinion, personal experience, and Canon had to have the right product at the right price.
In the past family members had owned Canon products, and they were good. I knew Canon was largely regarded as a top camera maker, and they had a camera with a long optical zoom for under $400.
Really, the product itself was only a small fraction of the equation. Before you can sell something to someone, they have to know about you, like you, and agree to your price.

 

[Marsu42]

"The best" rarely gets purchased... "The best that I can afford" and "this meets my needs" are the two big sellers...

Imho the better part would be "The most expensive I can afford" rather than "this meets my needs" as Canon's marketing is extremely clever at giving customers means to rationalize spending a hellish amount of money for equipment that exceeds their needs or ability. Canon's whole lineup is designed for upselling with producing nice cameras/lenses, but still leaving out enough to annoy you and let you wish for the next best thing (usually L lenses or at least a 5d3)...

 

[regnwaldo]

For video - faster tracking of focus is needed than the 70D, although auto focus on video can be a curse.

My objection to the 70D is the defective processing of hand held shots. Canon does something TOO smart. This is one of a hundred or so pics using 500mm hand held 1/750 sec with defective bg, I suspect image stabilization software. ALL of them with bg foliage 'streaking' from top right to bottom left. The honeyeater was photographed using a 5D Mk II in the same fashion with NEVER such a problem.

So, heaven help the 7D Mk II dreamers.