Pick between two options for the Canon 7D II

[RGF]

Hard choice. In the end I would go with lower MP (assuming that they are clean) and better S/N and gain FPS.

 

[dgatwood]

Very difficult choice. I'd definitely give up FPS for better low-light performance. The megapixel question is a little harder, because you can always do binning on the RAW file to get a lower megapixel image with better SNR. The answer really depends on how much better noise levels we're talking about.

 

[cellomaster27]

Aw man. The title of the post got me excited until the two options to vote. I don't really care about fps, I think it's okay already though that will mostly likely be improved with a newer digic chip. Higher iso performance is a must!! Megapixels.. Will be the same or better, right? Why would it go down.. Cleaner images at high iso will determine my purchase. A usable 25k iso?? ^^

 

[M.ST]

None of them.

20/21 Megapixel with 9/10 frames per second, two CF card slots, superfast Hybrid AF System (usable down to -5 EV), new sensor design, new battery, ISO usable to 3200, outstanding image quality from ISO 50 to ISO 800, AEB (with 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 shots), build in electronic ND and GND filter, shutter durability up to 200.000 shots and without all the junk like in camera HDR, HTP, ALO, rate function etc.

 

[Dick]

I don't like those options at all.

ISO 6400 is not really usable on 5D3, so on 7D2? Not gonna happen... I guess this comes down to the definition of "usable". My shooting style is to avoid high ISOs especially when it's dark.

Then the slow burst rate combined with the higher mega pickles... What's the point? Well, if it's a macro only camera then yeah, I'd go with this options just to get more room for additional cropping.

 

[J.R.]

Picking better ISO performance as opposed to higher MP is my choice. 9 FPS will be a bonus it at all it is provided.

I'd be happy though if Canon were to serve a "middle ground" 7D2 which, in my opinion is more likely. Usable ISO 3200, 20 MP and 8 fps and good AF - I'd probably buy it.

 

[-Jarred-]

I'm another not too fussed with FPS. I'd be happy with 8 like the current 7D has. Give it the 5DIII AF/metering and a 16-whateverMP sensor that gives clean images up to ISO1600, and usable up to 3200. and I'll be sold. I'd rather it didn't have the integrated grip like some of the rumors have mentioned though.

 

[RGF]

I agree that this is a hard choice. I suspect that Canon will need to decide between similar options. What ever they decide, some of us will be unhappy.

 

[CanNotYet]

I agree that the options offered are not optimal, but between those two, lower MP and better Hi-ISO/speed wins out.

To me, 7D is and always will be a sports/wildlife/action camera, not a studio/landscape camera. And, assuming Canon thinks so too, and keeps with it, the 7D2 benefits from both higher FPS and better hi-ISO to enable faster shutter speeds.

I think Canon needs a "crop 1DX", and the 7D2 is right now the best candidate for that. The other crop cameras from Canon are merging more and more towards video cameras, with their variangle screens and all. Who knows, Canon might try to saturate the market with both a sports version and a studio version of the 7D?

But, bottom line, low MP and speed over high MP.

 

[Robert Welch]

...ISO 6400 is not really usable on 5D3, so on 7D2? Not gonna happen... I guess this comes down to the definition of "usable". My shooting style is to avoid high ISOs especially when it's dark....

This is the first I've ever seen this opinion, I find 6400 quite 'usable' on both my 5Dmk3 and 6D. I do agree that one must define 'usable', and if you don't want to see any grain in your photo when you view it at 200% on a monitor, then perhaps you won't find it 'usable'. However, if you want to make nice looking prints, even at rather large sizes, a well exposed file at 6400iso from these cameras should do nicely. As far as avoiding high ISOs when it's dark, well that simply makes no sense at all. I suppose when it gets dark you lower the ISO? Well, no comment.

As for the 7DmkII, or whatever it will be called, I'm not too keen on cropped sensor cameras anymore. My 7D may be the last one I'll own. I think the cropped sensor has 2 places, for cheaper cameras like the Rebel series, and perhaps for a high performance sports/action camera where the longer effective focal length of tele lenses becomes an advantage. For the later, high FPS and good high ISO would be be important, so the 2nd option would be preferable. I should think that 'usable' 3200 iso would be reasonably easy to achieve these days with current technology. The 7D really isn't that bad at 3200, it just loses detail when compared to it's full frame alternatives because of heavy handed NR. They just need to get the high ISO detail retention up, and improve the AF to the accuracy of the 5D3 and it will be attractive to sports and other similarly minded photographers. For portrait/wedding photographers like myself, I feel the cropped sensor cameras are no longer of value.

 

[alexanderferdinand]

I love my "only" 16MP 1D4 a lot.
(and there is this yellow cam, has only 12MP on a FF- sensor; rumors say, it is a good one...)
A 7D should be a sportscamera. And we all know, the light can´t be enough for freezing action.
So: 16MP, high FPS.
Would have no problem with 12MP, with very low noise, BTW

 

[Pancho]

7DII : Sport / Wildlife => speed, speed, speed.
AF must be fast and accurate even on moving objects.
High speed exposition so High ISO capability is a must.
High FPS.. Of course it is needed!
So, definitly, the second option is mine.
High MP is important to be able to crop and gain even more reach. But this can be obtained by choosing the right lens, while for high ISO and FPS, the lens choice can not do a lot of things...

 

[eLroberto]

None of them.

20/21 Megapixel with 9/10 frames per second, two CF card slots, superfast Hybrid AF System (usable down to -5 EV), new sensor design, new battery, ISO usable to 3200, outstanding image quality from ISO 50 to ISO 800, AEB (with 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 shots), build in electronic ND and GND filter, shutter durability up to 200.000 shots and without all the junk like in camera HDR, HTP, ALO, rate function etc.

+1 but by now I would be happy with a bit less mp and fps

kind regards, eL

 

[Drum]

Higher iso.... but really any sensor development would be welcome.

 

[stefsan]

Tough choice – in the end, it all boils down to your definition of usable… Best option would be 24MP with very clean/usable (i.e. no patterned read-out/banding noise) pictures up to ISO 12800 8)

 

[Zv]

I would take any megapixel as long as the ugly noise goes away at all ISOs right up to and including 6400. All else can stay the same for all I care. 7D does well even by todays standards though.

 

[jdramirez]

it isn't a difficult choice for me at all. if I got it as a second body, then I would want the faster frames per second. low light, I would really on my mkiii, but it isn't a tough choice.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Don't care about mps, 8mp 16:9 aspect would be perfect, 4k and straight downsampling to 1080hd.
Headphone socket, sd slot for ML firmware option to load from, no aliasing. No jello.

Oh yeah and i suppose the capacity to take stills would be nice.

Hoping to get my 7d back soon, cps have called, need new boards in grip and in camera. Praying to have it back for jousting on Saturday.

 

[Dylan777]

Another vote for low MP & better high ISO.

 

[insanitybeard]

Like the majority, I would prefer improved high ISO performance, even if that requires the MP count to be kept down. I can't imagine a 7D II having less FPS than the original.