First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]

[K-amps]

I'm not going to get overly excited about CR1 specs from an "unknown source."

Reserve judgment on a sensor until real specs and results are known (probably won't know that until several months after the announcement). Consensus on this forum seems to be that noise and dynamic range improvements are more important than the number of pixels. Absent a major change/breakthrough in sensor design, I would be surprised if Canon ups the pixel count of the APS-C sensor above that of its full frame offerings.

New battery is a mild disappointment, but I assume Canon would make the change because they have to for design/engineering reasons.

Please, let them keep at least one CF card slot in a dual card system.

New ergonomic design is too vague to warrant comment at this point.

All in all, I'm more excited that we are finally getting rumors about a 7DII. At this point, the content of those rumors aren't as important as the fact that there are rumors circulating.

If we look at what people are unhappy about with the 7D, generally it is to do with noise and image sharpness. I am not aware of anyone being unhappy with the pixel count. Canon may however need to up the pixel count to 24MP to match Nikon and Sony, rather than to address any real need - i.e. for marketing reasons. Assuming Canon continues to flow the same sensor down through its APS-C range, that would be a reason to move to 24MP. - In the market for APS-C (and especially entry-level) DSLRs a lot of customers are still comparing "mega-pickles".

Thats it, if it is another 18mp sensor, I am selling all my imaginary CAJ stock....

oh yeah, and moving to Nikon...

 

[Pieces Of E]

I don't see how firmware would improve high-ISO noise, which is mostly dependent on the quantum efficiency of the sensor and the transmittance of the Bayer dyes. You might be able to do some calibration tricks and dark-frame subtraction to help with fixed pattern noise, but there's just not much else you could do, other than applying noise reduction to the raw images which we generally don't like.


Wow. This is why I like to read and ask questions here. I learn a lot. Thanks Lee Jay.

 

[rpt]

I don't see how firmware would improve high-ISO noise, which is mostly dependent on the quantum efficiency of the sensor and the transmittance of the Bayer dyes. You might be able to do some calibration tricks and dark-frame subtraction to help with fixed pattern noise, but there's just not much else you could do, other than applying noise reduction to the raw images which we generally don't like.


Wow. This is why I like to read and ask questions here. I learn a lot. Thanks Lee Jay.

In other news - development of software or firmware has nothing to do with the principles of maths/physics/chemistry or computer science... Hence one can expect improvements by leaps and bounds...

 

[MichaelHodges]

No, it doesn't. The extra pixels are capable of showing the blur that was already there in more detail. Reducing the pixel count just hides that blur inside the blur due to poor sampling.

Advanced Diffraction calculator for different sensor types:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

 

[SJTstudios]

What they could mean about the battery, is that they are changing the voltage. They updated the 1dx battery, even though it was still compatible with the lp-e4. Canon may just want the new battery for longer lasting life, with the 10fps, and a large file, the camera needs power to save the images.

Something else I'd like, is if canon make a new grip for this 7d ii, I hope it is like the Nikon d300 grip, where you add in a different battery for more power. If they do this with the 1dx battery, and allow the fps to go up, or the fps to last longer, sports/wildlife photographers would really go for that.

 

[East Wind Photography]

My guess it will cost right about 9699.00 for the body only.

 

[Lee Jay]

No, it doesn't. The extra pixels are capable of showing the blur that was already there in more detail. Reducing the pixel count just hides that blur inside the blur due to poor sampling.

Advanced Diffraction calculator for different sensor types:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Please don't use that site. That guy barely understands diffraction and the site itself is misleading in that it could lead people into thinking that smaller pixels cause more diffraction, which is just flat out false. Diffraction is caused by lens aperture, and nothing else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_cutoff_frequency

Spacial cutoff frequency = 1/lambda*f#

Notice there's no mention of film, sensor, pixels or or pixel size.

 

[pwp]

HMMM...New ergonomic design? Why? The 7D's, and 5D III which borrowed from it, ergonomics are pretty damn stellar...

7D & 5D3 ergonomics are pretty good but I'd comfortably reserve the Stellar award for 1-Series bodies.

Non 1-Series bodies feel almost clunky by comparison. I use both on a daily basis. Ergonomics is one of the defining points of difference between 1-Series and 7D/5D3. Once used, it's hard to settle for less.

If the 7DII can close the gap with further ergonomic refinement then what's there to argue?

-PW

 

[symmar22]

New design and battery.. WHY CANON, WHY?! But other specs looks nice, but I'll pass if I'm not getting good deal out of that one.

New batteries because too many cameras use the same battery and people have enough BP-E6 so they don't buy new ones. If you are a serious user, you want at least a spare one, that you have to buy separately. You cannot reuse the spare from your old camera anymore. A new accessory they can make money from.

 

[stoneysnapper]

I also think it will have built in wifi and gps like the 6D has.

As long as it has a mag-alloy chassis, it most probably will not have integrated GPS and WiFi. The mag-alloy chassis acts as a Faraday cage, preventing decent radio reception/transmission. Canon would probably compromise on the integrity of the chassis in order to get the wireless antennas into a position where reasonable radio performance is possible.

Fair point.

 

[FTb-n]

I only want two things in the 7D2. Less noise at higher ISO -- ideally a 2 stop boost. And a locking mode dial. More AF points and higher FPS would be nice pluses, but not necessary for me.

The one feature that intrigues me about the 5D3 is it's performance in low light. Based on researching online reviews, I estimate the benefit to be about 3 stops over the 7D (and my 60D). So, I've dreamed about swapping my 60D/17-55 2.8 IS for the 5DIII/24-105 4L IS -- a logical upgrade path.
I would be losing a stop on the lens for a net gain of 2 stops in low light performance.

Now, if the 7D2 offered that 2 stop boost, I wouldn't need the 5D3 -- which is why I fear that the 7D2 will only have a modest boost in low light performance. Granted, the 5D3 offers sharper images and deeper color, but I suspect its low light advantage is a key reason that many consider it to be the logical upgrade for a 7D. Canon may want to preserve this path.

I do think that Canon will position the 7D2 to be the king of crop bodies. This means more MP, maybe more FPS, and better video -- better than the consumer bodies. I suspect this is why the 5D3 and the 6D lack the STM video focus benefits of the T4i. Canon may be saving a better video focus system for the 7D2. However, I doubt that the 7D2 will get the articulating screen simply because it lessens the durability factor.

I hope I'm wrong. I don't really care about the video improvements. All I want is better low light performance -- and a locking mode dial.

 

[Lee Jay]

I only want two things in the 7D2. Less noise at higher ISO -- ideally a 2 stop boost.

I seriously doubt that's possible.

The one feature that intrigues me about the 5D3 is it's performance in low light. Based on researching online reviews, I estimate the benefit to be about 3 stops over the 7D (and my 60D).

Not even close. Slightly more than 1. Much less than 2. 1 1/3 is what you'd get from nothing but the larger sensor so this is about right.

You might be looking at JPEGs. The processing engines in the new cameras are quite good, but the raw data hasn't really improved much since the 7D came out.

Have a look: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/28

Select the 5DIII and the 7D. Compare 25,600 on the 5D to 12,800 and 6,400 on the 7D.

 

[FTb-n]

I know, a 2 stop boost in high ISO noise reduction is a lot to ask for.

Regarding the noise reduction benefit of the 5D3 vs. 7D, I was definitely looking at the JPEGs and have looked at DPReview's comparison tool. In a way, I'd take it as good news that the difference is less than two stops since I don't want to spend the money on a 5D3.

I've also looked at the Image Resource's Comparometer (link below). I don't know if they use in-camera JPEGs or RAW converted by software. But, to me, the 5D3 at 25600 looks better than the 7D at 6400, but not as good as the 7D at 3200 -- roughly 2 1/2 stops. Now, I suspect this is a controlled test and real world results may not be as significant. So, it helps to hear from those with hands on experience.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

 

[sanj]

I do not resist new battery. How will we have better batteries if we do not upgrade every now and then? Yeah it would be a bonus if it was back compatible.

 

[Secretariat]

Would make a good backup camera for the 1DX,especially for the reach factor.

 

[Lee Jay]

I know, a 2 stop boost in high ISO noise reduction is a lot to ask for.

Regarding the noise reduction benefit of the 5D3 vs. 7D, I was definitely looking at the JPEGs and have looked at DPReview's comparison tool. In a way, I'd take it as good news that the difference is less than two stops since I don't want to spend the money on a 5D3.

I've also looked at the Image Resource's Comparometer (link below). I don't know if they use in-camera JPEGs or RAW converted by software. But, to me, the 5D3 at 25600 looks better than the 7D at 6400, but not as good as the 7D at 3200 -- roughly 2 1/2 stops. Now, I suspect this is a controlled test and real world results may not be as significant. So, it helps to hear from those with hands on experience.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Those are JPEGs and, yes, the new JPEG engine is very impressive in this regard.

 

[Secretariat]

HMMM...New ergonomic design? Why? The 7D's, and 5D III which borrowed from it, ergonomics are pretty damn stellar...

7D & 5D3 ergonomics are pretty good but I'd comfortably reserve the Stellar award for 1-Series bodies.

Non 1-Series bodies feel almost clunky by comparison. I use both on a daily basis. Ergonomics is one of the defining points of difference between 1-Series and 7D/5D3. Once used, it's hard to settle for less.

If the 7DII can close the gap with further ergonomic refinement then what's there to argue?

-PW

+1 here.One of the reasons that made me choose the 1DX over the 5D MKIII even if it was twice more expensive.Of course,that is aside from the 1DX being a bit better and AF and a bit better higher ISO performance,and last but not least,the 12 FPS as compared to the 6 FPS of the 5D MKIII.

 

[jrista]

I know, a 2 stop boost in high ISO noise reduction is a lot to ask for.

Regarding the noise reduction benefit of the 5D3 vs. 7D, I was definitely looking at the JPEGs and have looked at DPReview's comparison tool. In a way, I'd take it as good news that the difference is less than two stops since I don't want to spend the money on a 5D3.

I've also looked at the Image Resource's Comparometer (link below). I don't know if they use in-camera JPEGs or RAW converted by software. But, to me, the 5D3 at 25600 looks better than the 7D at 6400, but not as good as the 7D at 3200 -- roughly 2 1/2 stops. Now, I suspect this is a controlled test and real world results may not be as significant. So, it helps to hear from those with hands on experience.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Those are JPEGs and, yes, the new JPEG engine is very impressive in this regard.

JPEG engines are good, yes, but it is not just processing that improves ISO on Canon's latest sensors. Improvements to Q.E. increase the full well capacity (FWC) in terms of electrons. That in turn allows the use of a higher gain at ISO 100, which increases gain at all other ISO settings (which drop by a factor of two for each stop of ISO.) So, I wouldn't go so far as to say improving ISO by around two stops on the 7D is impossible. Based on sensorgen.info, Canon has been able to improve ISO by about a stop for every 8% increase in Q.E. At the moment, the 7D has 41% Q.E., so if the 7D II was improved to around 57% Q.E. or so, I do not see why it would be impossible for then to achieve two stops better ISO.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I wish they would build it with the battery grip, however I know that would be very inconvenient for many folks that don't like it or it's too large for.

I don't see why anyone would want the grip to be built in and not removable.

Granted, it's a limited and self-selecting population, but in the recent Custom Brackets poll, more people have gripped bodies than not, and the majority of people who have a grip on their body use it frequently.

 

[East Wind Photography]

I find it easier to stash a 5DIII body in my coat pocket than a 1DX.

I wish they would build it with the battery grip, however I know that would be very inconvenient for many folks that don't like it or it's too large for.

I don't see why anyone would want the grip to be built in and not removable.

Granted, it's a limited and self-selecting population, but in the recent Custom Brackets poll, more people have gripped bodies than not, and the majority of people who have a grip on their body use it frequently.