# 7d2 IQ thoughts.



## sanj (May 26, 2014)

Most of you have been using Canon for long and have been following its progress.

I realize 7d2 it will be fast, responsive etc etc. but do you think the IQ will be noticeably better than Canon's latest 70D say at ISO 1200?

I am wondering when (and if ever) the latest crop cameras will be able to compare with 5d2. Is 6 years enough for technology to reach a point where new crop camera's catch up to full frame?

I would be very happy if the new 7D2 quality would be close to 5d2. Wondering if that is too much to hope for considering the frame size difference?


----------



## Khalai (May 26, 2014)

sanj said:


> Most of you have been using Canon for long and have been following its progress.
> 
> I realize 7d2 it will be fast, responsive etc etc. but do you think the IQ will be noticeably better than Canon's latest 70D say at ISO 1200?
> 
> ...



Problem lies in physics. You are basically wishing (as most of us, however naively) for the sensor, that is approx. 40% of FF size, yet has the same S/N per pixel density. But maybe someday, still the best APS-C sensor will be (probably) never able to compare to the concurrent best FF sensor in the S/N department.


----------



## wsmith96 (May 26, 2014)

sanj said:


> Most of you have been using Canon for long and have been following its progress.
> 
> I realize 7d2 it will be fast, responsive etc etc. but do you think the IQ will be noticeably better than Canon's latest 70D say at ISO 1200?
> 
> ...



As I peer into my crystal ball I'm seeing that the images will be technically better, but the increase in image quality will be unnoticed by most.


----------



## Don Haines (May 26, 2014)

I would say yes for two reasons.

First, we can expect the sensor to have better quantum efficiency and lower read noise.... but expect the change to be a few percent better... something that can be noticed in a laboratory but will probably be invisible to even the most dedicated pixel peeper.

Second, we can expect a better AF system. I think this is where the real differences will come from... more accurate focus give less blur and a higher keeper rate.... I'd love to see a camera that could AFMA itself.... As I am fond of saying, nobody cares what the DR is of an out of focus picture


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 26, 2014)

I hope 7D Mark ii will be a great camera for fast action, lighter and cheaper than 1DX. Therefore, I would like an AF system as good as 5D Mark III. And most important, the amount of chroma noise at ISO 3200 as good as 5D Mark III at ISO 6400. I do not need more than 16 megapixels, and I think with this pixel density is feasible to achieve low noise as I hope.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 26, 2014)

sanj said:


> I am wondering when (and if ever) the latest crop cameras will be able to compare with 5d2. Is 6 years enough for technology to reach a point where new crop camera's catch up to full frame?



The sensor doesn't matter that much because the light has to pass the lens first  and you need top-notch glass to illuminate a 20mp crop area like 20mp full frame area.

Alas, the best Canon L lenses are always ef mount so you're paying for glass you carry, but don't use. The best you can expect from the 7d2 is "good enough" for most non-studio purposes, and if it wouldn't be for the banding the 7d1 is already there concerning pixel density.

Concerning iso capability there are physical limits and I don't expect Canon to put an entire new tech into the 7d2, they'll reserve that for their most expensive cameras... so my bet is that you'll be still stuck at iso 800 or if cutting corners iso 1600 with the 7d2 if shooting for 100% res.

Last not least, one important factor is dynamic range esp. for outdoor shots in bright sunlight - but Canon won't reach Nikon here either because the latter have patented Sony sensor tech Canon won't license even if they had the offer.


----------



## Lightmaster (May 26, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Last not least, one important factor is dynamic range esp. for outdoor shots in bright sunlight - but Canon won't reach Nikon here either because the latter have patented Sony sensor tech Canon won't license even if they had the offer.



canon has not to patent anything.
there are plenty of ways to achieve things.

phase AF on the sensor for example.
it´s used by a few companys thought canon has patents for it, nikon has patents for it etc.

sony has also the benefit that it´s sensors use less space for the pixel circuits and electronics, because of the smaller manufacturing process.

if canon makes the jump to a smaller manufacturing process and includes some of it´s lately release technology patents into a new sensor there is no need for sony patents to match sonys DR and base noise performance. noise is related to DR performance.


----------



## drjlo (May 26, 2014)

sanj said:


> I would be very happy if the new 7D2 quality would be close to 5d2. Wondering if that is too much to hope for considering the frame size difference?



Being a realist, we would have to ask ourselves, "When was the last time the sensor in a new Canon body exceeded our expectations?"


----------



## NancyP (May 26, 2014)

I too would be happy with keeping the 18 MP but improving the QE a bit and improving the ADC and other RAW processing a lot. The oft-heard complaint of 7Dclassic linear noise in skies does not happen with the 60D, and should be abolished in the 7D2 - and that 7D problem is related to ADC and processing, not to the MP quantity. I want sophisticated autofocusing, 8 to 12 fps, deep deep deep RAW buffer capacity (30 RAWs) and very fast buffer clearance, weather-proofing, possibly a beefier battery than the LPE6 (faster AF), possibly wifi for remote operation. Basically, I want to upgrade my 60D before the 60D keels over.


----------



## Don Haines (May 26, 2014)

drjlo said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I would be very happy if the new 7D2 quality would be close to 5d2. Wondering if that is too much to hope for considering the frame size difference?
> ...


70D?


----------



## Don Haines (May 26, 2014)

NancyP said:


> I too would be happy with keeping the 18 MP but improving the QE a bit and improving the ADC and other RAW processing a lot. The oft-heard complaint of 7Dclassic linear noise in skies does not happen with the 60D, and should be abolished in the 7D2 - and that 7D problem is related to ADC and processing, not to the MP quantity. I want sophisticated autofocusing, 8 to 12 fps, deep deep deep RAW buffer capacity (30 RAWs) and very fast buffer clearance, weather-proofing, possibly a beefier battery than the LPE6 (faster AF), possibly wifi for remote operation. Basically, I want to upgrade my 60D before the 60D keels over.



I'm with you. My 60D is getting long in the tooth and is somewhere around 150,000 clicks on the shutter... It's definitely time for a replacement.

Over the last 5 years there have been lots of little improvements... few of which are noteworthy on their own, but add them all up and you get a big difference. Sort of like the 5D2 and the 5D3.....


----------



## unfocused (May 26, 2014)

For all practical purposes, this topic was pretty much explored in this thread: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20525.msg387978#msg387978 Skip the first several pages of childish comments and dig into the longer explanations of the limitations of APS-C for some insights. 

Shorthand Conclusion: An APS-C sensor won't exceed the quality of an APS-H sensor, so clearly, it's not going to be better than the 5DII full frame sensor.

Knowing that, I really believe we can more intelligently speculate on what the 7DII might look like. 

I see Canon playing on the strengths of APS-C rather than trying to compensate for its weaknesses. I would not be surprised at all if the 7D II looks something like this:

24mp dual pixel sensor. 
Very modest improvements in noise at high-ish ISOs (800-3200). Slightly better than 70D but not as clean as a full frame or even APS-H sensor.
Dual card slots (SD and CF)
Frame rate between the 7D and 1DX
Weathersealing at least as good as 5DIII, possibly better
Autofocus at least as good as 5DIII, possibly better
f8 Autofocus
Touch Screen
Wifi
A handful of video-oriented features (I don't know what these would be, because I don't shoot video, but I believe we will see some video improvements/features)
Perhaps a few other unexpected features (built in transmitter for 600 RT would be nice, but I'm guessing the regulatory issues make that too complicated to implement as it would require different bodies for different regions)

In short, I think what you will see is a high-end, high-performance body that will be great for daytime sports, birding and wildlife shooting.

Canon will build on the strengths of the 1.6 magnification factor. A 24mp or higher sensor will give distance-limited photographers an ability to crop out a significant portion of an image, and still retain enough pixels for some very nice and good sized enlargements. 

Think about coupling that with a new 100-400 5.6 zoom: 400 x 1.6 = 640mm x 1.4 teleconverter (with f8 focusing) = 896mm then crop out half the frame, leaving a 12mp image = effective focal length of about 1,800mm. 

Extreme example, but you get the idea. 

And, from Canon's perspective, the great thing is it supplements, but doesn't replace the 5DIII or the 1Dx, which are still going to be the best available cameras for higher ISOs, portraiture, events, etc. etc. 

It's all part of Canon's two-body strategy. With the market maturing, they need to find new opportunities. Selling enthusiasts two bodies is the best way to increase sales. I've read a lot of posts from former 7D users who claim that now that they have a 5DIII they don't want a 7DII. But, they haven't seen the 7DII. Canon's challenge is to change their minds and I think they'll do that.


----------



## jrista (May 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I would say yes for two reasons.
> 
> First, we can expect the sensor to have better quantum efficiency and lower read noise.... but expect the change to be a few percent better... something that can be noticed in a laboratory but will probably be invisible to even the most dedicated pixel peeper.
> 
> Second, we can expect a better AF system. I think this is where the real differences will come from... more accurate focus give less blur and a higher keeper rate.... I'd love to see a camera that could AFMA itself.... As I am fond of saying, nobody cares what the DR is of an out of focus picture



I agree that from a technical standpoint in terms of technical specifications, the difference is likely only to be a few percent, maybe 10% at most. 

However, there are some things Canon can do to make the PERCEPTUAL results better. One of the things I've noticed when I mess around and compare sample images from new cameras from all the review sites is that sharper images, even if they have the same absolute noise as a less sharp image, are PERCEIVED as having less noise. Softness makes noise stand out more. It's why noise is so visible and annoying in the soft blurry background boke, but not as visible in foreground detail. The sharper a camera and sensor are, the less impactful noise in the important detail is going to be.

Canon certainly has some sharp lenses, and I think that REALLY goes to their benefit in this area. If they can improve their overall sharpness, which probably means using slightly weaker AA filters (which will mean the potential for more moire, but maybe a worthwhile cost), then I think the 7D II is likely to be considered a visibly superior camera to the 7D and 70D.

The next biggest thing would, of course, be an increase in true sensitivity, in quantum efficiency. I'm really hoping Canon gets up to around 55% Q.E. or so, as that would offer some meaningful improvements in high ISO performance. It probably wouldn't be readily visible, but in the case of background boke, it should help.

A reduction in read noise is obviously going to be important, but only at lower ISO settings. ISO 100 and 200 would gain the most by far with a reduction in read noise. I know Canon has the technology to move ADC on-die, to hyperparallelize it, reduce operating frequency, and I know they have various patents for reducing noise in other ways, such as a power source disconnection during readout (which should effectively eliminate or nearly eliminate dark current noise, which can be a problem at higher ISO settings.) The biggest question in my mind is: 

_Will Canon *ACTUALLY EMPLOY* the technology they own...are are they once again going to just let all their sensor patents *sit and rot*._

They have been letting their CP-ADC patent rot since they released the 120mp 9.5fps APS-H sensor prototype. That was years ago now. They HAVE the technology. The technology is apparently quite good, if it allowed 120mp frames to be read out at 9.5fps. But...it's gone...nowhere........... That's the one thing I don't understand about Canon. According to their patents, they are sitting on some pretty bad-ass sensor tech, and it doesn't exist in any of their actual commercial equipment. It's just technology ideas rotting in a corner somewhere, apparently... :'(


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 26, 2014)

wsmith96 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Most of you have been using Canon for long and have been following its progress.
> ...



Don't you worry, the marketing department will make sure we not only notice the improvement, but are absolutely hooked to it.
Think television- once I thought standard definition was fine, and Trinitron was as good as it gets. Now, even high-def is passe and 4K is the next great thing. 
So yeah, when everyone has a 4K monitor on their desks, can you imagine the level of pixel peeping that will go on?


----------



## geonix (May 26, 2014)

unfocused said:


> I see Canon playing on the strengths of APS-C rather than trying to compensate for its weaknesses. I would not be surprised at all if the 7D II looks something like this:
> 
> 24mp dual pixel sensor.
> Very modest improvements in noise at high-ish ISOs (800-3200). Slightly better than 70D but not as clean as a full frame or even APS-H sensor.
> ...



I really wish you are right with your assumptions. On the IQ at ISO 800 and above I wish Canon would orient themselves more at the recent cropsensors from Nikon and Pentax and not only to the 70D. Imagine the new canon cropsensor flagship coming out in Oktober/September 2014 would still lack behind the D7100 from March 2013 in terms of noise and dynamic range. I would find that... lets say: inappropriate.

On the rest of the features for the 7D2 I fear that some canon marketing guys would feel like "Hey, this would be too good." So it wouldn't actually suprise me if they -again- put only one card slot or something like that. Like for the 70D, a camera with new dual-pixel technology, a revolutionary AF for video and than they don't give it a headphone jack. 

Well, somtimes I am just pessimistic


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 26, 2014)

If and when Canon bring out the 7D2 all they need to do to make it a IQ winner is to apply their current sensor technology to a LOW Mp APsc sensor. We all, me included, like the idea of higher MP counts but realistically we also know that fewer larger pixels are better in most circumstances. So basically what I am saying is that if the 7D Mk2 is 16+ MP it will be of no use to me, now if it was in the 10-12 mp range (with Canon's latest sensor technology) I would be looking at a very good backup to my 1DX.
They won't make it though - pity!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 26, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> If and when Canon bring out the 7D2 all they need to do to make it a IQ winner is to apply their current sensor technology to a LOW Mp APsc sensor. We all, me included, like the idea of higher MP counts but realistically we also know that fewer larger pixels are better in most circumstances. So basically what I am saying is that if the 7D Mk2 is 16+ MP it will be of no use to me, now if it was in the 10-12 mp range (with Canon's latest sensor technology) I would be looking at a very good backup to my 1DX.
> They won't make it though - pity!


I will speak softly to anyone listening to us... :-X I would be happy with 12 megapixel (for my use). : There are concrete facts that lead me to believe that the leadership of 1DX has clean image at ISO 6400 due to the large size of the photodiodes. On the other hand, D800 has the lead DR in ISO 100 (but not greater than 800) because of quantum efficiency, which can not be copied by D4 also has large photodiodes. 

Let's be realistic: ??? Improvements in ISO 6400, DO NOT guarantee optimal DR at ISO 100 the same way, improvements in ISO 100 no guarantee clean image at ISO 6400. This time 1DX is king in high ISO, and D800 is king in low ISO. It's good to have options, but I need a camera with great low-light performance and great AF, cost much lower than 1DX.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 26, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > If and when Canon bring out the 7D2 all they need to do to make it a IQ winner is to apply their current sensor technology to a LOW Mp APsc sensor. We all, me included, like the idea of higher MP counts but realistically we also know that fewer larger pixels are better in most circumstances. So basically what I am saying is that if the 7D Mk2 is 16+ MP it will be of no use to me, now if it was in the 10-12 mp range (with Canon's latest sensor technology) I would be looking at a very good backup to my 1DX.
> ...



For your requirements I would have a look at the 5D3 and the 6D. If you are looking more to sports/wildlife then the 5D3 would be the better option. Static subjects the the 6D is great and cheaper. Another good alternative is a used 1D4 especially if you want a fast camera.


----------



## unfocused (May 26, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > johnf3f said:
> ...



Exactly. Look at it from Canon's perspective. They make a 6D that is available at under $1,500 (street price). The 6D provides better image quality than a low megapixel APS-C sensor. I'm guessing they look at it and say that photographers who want the best image quality really ought to go full frame and now they have a low-cost option available to do that.

On the other hand, photographers who want reach, high resolution, high frame rates, etc., really need an APS-C body. Canon can either produce a higher-resolution, sports-wildlife-birding oriented 7DII or they can release an lower resolution APS-C body that would be great for all-around shooting but wouldn't really excel in any particular area. 

Canon took a very targeted approach with the 5DIII, creating a camera that is a wedding and event photographer's dream, but that is also very desirable for higher-market enthusiasts as well. I think they'll target the 7DII at a specific audience as well -- although like the 5DIII it will be very serviceable for general purpose use as well.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 27, 2014)

In my specific case, full frame is not the best choice because I need to shoot in low light, and still have wide depth of field. For such depth of field with full frame, I would have to close the aperture more than one stop, losing much of the advantage of high ISO. How I use two cameras at the same time also need cameras and lenses lightweight as only APS-C can be.


----------



## Don Haines (May 27, 2014)

Why would anyone even remotely think that Canon is going to come out with a low-megapixel APS-C camera? You loose the reach advantage of APS-C, yet unless you drop down to less than a 7.8 megapixel camera, you will still have smaller pixels than a 6D and worse low-light performance.....

Not going to happen!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 27, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Why would anyone even remotely think that Canon is going to come out with a low-megapixel APS-C camera? You loose the reach advantage of APS-C, yet unless you drop down to less than a 7.8 megapixel camera, you will still have smaller pixels than a 6D and worse low-light performance.....
> Not going to happen!


I do not expect APS-C has performance equal to 1DX, but ISO3200 as good as 5D Mark III in 6400. I also do not believe that Canon will launch the replacement for 7D with just 12 megapixel, although that would be suitable for photojournalism. My point is that APS-C is advantageous when you need the depth of field MORE WIDE.


----------



## unfocused (May 27, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> In my specific case, full frame is not the best choice because I need to shoot in low light, and still have wide depth of field. For such depth of field with full frame, I would have to close the aperture more than one stop, losing much of the advantage of high ISO. How I use two cameras at the same time also need cameras and lenses lightweight as only APS-C can be.



That's a pretty specific set of needs. I'm sure you understand why Canon might not see a market for that.

I'm guessing you are shooting for publication, which is why you don't need more than 12 mp. 

I'm not sure that depth of field works quite like you describe though. My understanding has always been that perceived greater depth of field with APS-C is created by the distance from the subject to the camera. 

A 200mm lens on an APS-C camera and a 200mm lens on a full frame camera -- both pictures taken from the same spot and the full frame image cropped to match the APS-C crop -- should have the same depth of field, correct? Although the full frame crop is likely to get you below your 12mp target.


----------



## Don Haines (May 27, 2014)

unfocused said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > In my specific case, full frame is not the best choice because I need to shoot in low light, and still have wide depth of field. For such depth of field with full frame, I would have to close the aperture more than one stop, losing much of the advantage of high ISO. How I use two cameras at the same time also need cameras and lenses lightweight as only APS-C can be.
> ...


You are right in that the depth of field of a 200mm lens is the same regardless of what body it is mounted on... however, if we are talking about field of view, a 125mm lens on a crop camera would have the same field of view as a 200mm lens on a FF camera, and all else being equal, the 125mm lens would have greater depth of field.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 27, 2014)

unfocused said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > In my specific case, full frame is not the best choice because I need to shoot in low light, and still have wide depth of field. For such depth of field with full frame, I would have to close the aperture more than one stop, losing much of the advantage of high ISO. How I use two cameras at the same time also need cameras and lenses lightweight as only APS-C can be.
> ...


I mean the depth of field with APS-C and full frame, both with the same framework. When I photographed film, always ended up stopping down to F5.6 lens at least, and with APS-C can use F3.5 to get the same depth of field.


----------



## jrista (May 27, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> So yeah, when everyone has a 4K monitor on their desks, can you imagine the level of pixel peeping that will go on?



Actually, since the pixels in 4k screens are about 1/4 the size of pixels in 1080p screens, and are that much harder to see, pixel peeping will actually be much more difficult to do. Not only that, the increase in density should improve sharpness on-screen, so pixel peepers should be seeing better results...and might finally stop bitching.


----------



## jdramirez (May 27, 2014)

I wouldn't get my hopes up... It will probably be the same sensor as the 70d. But if they did something dramatic... I think it might be possible to do a 20mp aps-h sensor like the 1d line had a generation or two back. That way you could improve low light performance, though not as much as a 6d. It would be better in most regards than the crop bodies, and fps than the full frame, but not as good of low light performance.


----------



## sanj (May 27, 2014)

Thank you all for your insightful comments.


----------



## wsmith96 (May 27, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



I'm sure they will, and am not worried about it


----------



## tapanit (May 27, 2014)

For me, I would want IQ at least roughly as good as 5Dmk3 _cropped_ to same size (using same area of the sensor). Especially with high(ish) ISO values. That is the hard part: if they can do that, everything else I want is almost a given. If not, nothing else matters much.

Otherwise, I'd want more speed, especially bigger buffer (that's the one thing where even old 7D beats 5Dmk3), better AF (at least as good as 5Dmk3) - and that's about it. WiFi, GPS, video features I don't care much about. One contraindicator: if it has fixed vertical handle like 1-series, then I won't buy it unless it is otherwise really miraculous or ridiculously cheap.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 27, 2014)

tapanit said:


> For me, I would want IQ at least roughly as good as 5Dmk3 _cropped_ to same size (using same area of the sensor). Especially with high(ish) ISO values.



That's the catch: With current Canon sensor tech, the advantage of the ff sensors is "larger pixels" which would mean a 12mp (or less?) 7d2 - no way Canon will put something like this on the market in the times of automated spec comparisons and spec religion.

For the kind of money the 7d2 will most likely will arrive at they have to target a large user crowd, unless selling 1d Canon is not in the business of creating niche products. This means video features, and then some more video-still combination features. The phase af might come last because people who want 1dx-like af should at least buy the 5d3 and some longer lenses :-o


----------



## Palettemediaproduktion (May 27, 2014)

I would say the reason we are kept waiting for the next generation of sensor tech from 
Canon is, in one word: timing. Bad timing is to release a camera with performance 
that is surpassed by the rival - in this case most likely Nikon. 

The bad timing of the release of 5D III was actually caused by the bad timing of the 
release of 1D X. It was delayed after Nikon introduced the new D4. Canon managed
to use the extra time to adjust the sensor tech to match the Nikon performance. 

The Nikon D800 forced Canon to accelerate the process of perfecting and releasing 
the 5D III before they actually were ready to launch their next sensor. 

The big problem was that we all (including Canon) predicted and expected the 5D III to 
be the best ever video filming DSLR camera. With the heritage from 5D II the demand 
for better inner quality in the filming department kind of forced the developers to go for 
a sensor with less moire. Exactly how this is done is something I haven´t read or heard 
about anywhere. But I suggest the inside software had to be designed to deal with much 
softer images from the sensor and apply a radical up sharpening. This would explain why 
the lo ISO performance is worse than expected. Readers here will surely share their opinion 
on this. Please add comments. 

My point is that I feel Canon does not want to make the same mistake again. They will 
release the next tech when they are certain the 4K video standard is on pair with what 
the other companies will be able to deliver in the next years to come. And they will have
to make the sensor output sharp and noise free for stills as well. Expect the 7D II to
be 20 megapixel with 4K video at 60p. That would be a well balanced step forward at 
this moment I think.

The new sensor has to be able to read out a huge amount of data or pre process 
it on chip before entering the processor. 

I predict the suggested quad pixel tech to be used in a way no one has talked about here. 
This tech allows not only for fast live AF, but also for reducing the sensor noise by using
the well known multi exposure technique. Instead of taking four separate images and 
sandwiching together for lower visible noise, Canon will be able to make one exposure 
with four separate channels of the same pixel read. This makes it possible to get a 
much better ISO performance. The potential for reducing and minimizing artifacts is 
huge, I would say. 

The advantage is that as long as you have the computing power needed you will have 
data that you can analyze with a broad range of noise reducing algorithms. 

And not only can you compare differences between four reads of the same pixel. 
You can compare the adjacent pixel reads or all pixels on the sensor and identify 
noise introduced by the power supply much easier. Four separate reads of the
single pixel allow you to step into the zero time domain where the processor will
have the optimum working space for computing errors in signal transfer.

It will be a matter of computing power to take the full advantage of the quad pixel 
tech and I guess this is why we are waiting for Canon to present the next generation 
of DSLR sensors. If they get it right I think we will se images and video with much 
less noise and improved color fidelity. 

Another question is if Canon would prefer to introduce the next generation of sensor 
I suggest on the 7DII or not. I suppose a demand for higher frame rates on this model 
makes things more complicated. 

The possibilities are just as overwhelming as the challenges. Canon will most likely
make sure they use the new sensor tech to the full extent before releasing it. 

This is my guess. What do you think?


----------



## jrista (May 27, 2014)

Palettemediaproduktion said:


> The bad timing of the release of 5D III was actually caused by the bad timing of the
> release of 1D X. It was delayed after Nikon introduced the new D4. Canon managed
> to use the extra time to adjust the sensor tech to match the Nikon performance.



Highly unlikely. It takes YEARS to design a sensor. Canon did not even have a year between the initial announcement of the 1D X and it's actual release to Photographers during the Olympics. The major changes between announcement and release had to do with the AF system, not the sensor. 

Canon did not adjust the sensor technology to match Nikon's performance. Canon had designed and finalized the design of the sensor, and was probably well into mass producing them, by the time they announced the product. There is no chance they reengineered it after that point...not in time for release. 

That means Canon released a highly competitive sensor out the gate WITHOUT the need to reengineer it to "match" the capabilities of the competition.



Palettemediaproduktion said:


> The Nikon D800 forced Canon to accelerate the process of perfecting and releasing
> the 5D III before they actually were ready to launch their next sensor.



Again, false. This is a 100% pure fabrication. 

The 5D III was in the same boat as the 1D X. It takes a good six years to engineer, debug, and release the kind of technology found in cameras like the 5D III and 1D X. By the time these cameras releases rolled around, it was WAY past any time when Canon would have had a chance to make any significant changes to their sensor technology.



Palettemediaproduktion said:


> The big problem was that we all (including Canon) predicted and expected the 5D III to
> be the best ever video filming DSLR camera. With the heritage from 5D II the demand
> for better inner quality in the filming department kind of forced the developers to go for
> a sensor with less moire. Exactly how this is done is something I haven´t read or heard
> ...



Again, false. The 5D III is a sharper camera than it's predecessor. It's AA filter is slightly weaker than the 5D II's. Canon binned the pixels to produce video, which is where some of the "softening" came from, but binning concurrently reduced noise. Tradeoffs.



Palettemediaproduktion said:


> My point is that I feel Canon does not want to make the same mistake again. They will
> release the next tech when they are certain the 4K video standard is on pair with what
> the other companies will be able to deliver in the next years to come. And they will have
> to make the sensor output sharp and noise free for stills as well. Expect the 7D II to
> ...



Speculation. As much as people like to use DSLRs for video, video is still the secondary purpose of this kind of camera. I don't think Canon is focusing solely on improving the video capabilities of the 7D II...especially because it's an APS-C camera. It is simply incapable of the same kind of thin DOF cinematic look and feel that the 5D II became famous for due to it's cropped sensor. I don't think the 7D II will be a particularly popular video DSLR. It might be somewhat popular, especially if it has some enhanced video features, but it isn't going to be the cinematic DSLR powerhouse that gave so many movies and TV shows reason to use it for professional prime time/big screen productions.



Palettemediaproduktion said:


> The new sensor has to be able to read out a huge amount of data or pre process
> it on chip before entering the processor.



Assuming it hits at around 20-24mp, it actually won't need to read out much more than the 5D III. I've already demonstrated mathematically on multiple occasions that the DIGIC5+ chips in the 1D X are more than capable of handling 10fps @ 24mp 14-bit.



Palettemediaproduktion said:


> I predict the suggested quad pixel tech to be used in a way no one has talked about here.
> This tech allows not only for fast live AF, but also for reducing the sensor noise by using
> the well known multi exposure technique. Instead of taking four separate images and sandwiching together for lower visible noise, Canon will be able to make one exposure with four separate channels of the same pixel read. This makes it possible to get a much better ISO performance. The potential for reducing and minimizing artifacts is huge, I would say.



Again, speculation. This is not a proven fact. It is a regurgitated assumption that people all over the net are spewing. There is no magic about the DPAF technology (which, BTW, is DUAL pixels, not quad pixels...all the patents and other evidence about the 70D clearly indicates the photodiode is split once, into two halves. The next refinement changes the sensitivities of each half. There is no quad pixel AF patent from Canon as of yet.) The photodiodes are split UNDER the color filters. Again , I've demonstrated mathematically on multiple occasions that dual-ISO reads of split photodiodes results in a net-zero result...you neither really gain nor lose anything. Dual-ISO with half-pixels is not the same as the dual-ISO with Magic Lantern, which utilizes FULL pixels and takes advantage of Canon's off-sensor, downstream secondary amplifier to do it's magic. Dual ISO with half pixels means your working with *half as much light *as what ML is working with now, which effectively nullifies any benefit you might have otherwise gained. Assuming Canon DOES eventually come out with QPAF, then each sub-photodiode is only receiving 1/4 of the light for the whole pixel. Same deal...Dual ISO with such a setup results in a net zero outcome...you cannot use less light to create a better result, no matter what ISO settings your using. 



Palettemediaproduktion said:


> And not only can you compare differences between four reads of the same pixel.
> You can compare the adjacent pixel reads or all pixels on the sensor and identify
> noise introduced by the power supply much easier. Four separate reads of the
> single pixel allow you to step into the zero time domain where the processor will
> have the optimum working space for computing errors in signal transfer.



Again, incorrect. It is *not *four reads of the same pixel. It is four reads *of 1/4 of the pixel!* It is four reads that result in 1/4 the light each (or, as the actual facts would have it, since it's DUAL pixel technology, two reads at 1/2 the light each). You cannot read a single half or quarter of a split photodiode, and assume it is the same as reading the whole pixel. That's WHY Canon bins the two photodiode halves in DPAF sensors when doing an image read (vs. an AF read)...because otherwise, they are just reading smaller pixels with less light. There is no magic here, no special capabilities. Smaller photodiodes are smaller photodiodes...they have less charge capacity, less total surface area for light to strike.

Four separate reads also mean more time to read out the sensor. It's more information, like going from a 20mp sensor to an 80mp sensor. I don't see how that allows any optimization of any kind...it's exactly the opposite. It's a factor of four increase in "pixels" to read, meaning at least that much more processing power would be required...more, really, if you factor in overhead.



Palettemediaproduktion said:


> It will be a matter of computing power to take the full advantage of the quad pixel
> tech and I guess this is why we are waiting for Canon to present the next generation
> of DSLR sensors. If they get it right I think we will se images and video with much
> less noise and improved color fidelity.



Assuming Canon ever creates a quad pixel sensor, yes, they will need significantly faster processors. Good thing they only do reads of each separate photodiode for AF purposes, and use hardware binning built into the sensor itself for image reads. That means they are still only reading out 20-24mp worth of "pixels", regardless of how many photodiodes there may be on the sensor.



Palettemediaproduktion said:


> Another question is if Canon would prefer to introduce the next generation of sensor
> I suggest on the 7DII or not. I suppose a demand for higher frame rates on this model
> makes things more complicated.
> 
> ...



I think you've made a lot of wild guesses, assumptions and crazy speculative leaps. You make the assumption that Canon has QPAF technology, they do not. (Based on current patent filings, no one does...some competitors are finally developing their own DPAF-like patents. Canon's own subsequent patents to DPAF, some only a few months old, still indicate DUAL photodiodes, not quad. The changes have to do with sensitivity alone, and those sensitivity changes have to do purely with AF technology, the image readout technology is still exactly the same...binned.)

I'm really not sure why everyone things that Canon's DPAF tech is actually QPAF tech, or why everyone thinks that somehow this dual PHOTODIODE/pixel technology is somehow going to mean better dynamic range. I keep debating these mistaken points...they just don't seem to die. Every time you split a photodiode, each resulting smaller photodiode is *less sensitive* to light...it has a smaller area. Concurrently, it increases the number of photodiodes that need to be read. There is no way to construe less light and more photodiodes as some kind of magical _optimization _that suddenly somehow gives Canon either a performance edge or a dynamic range edge or a noise management edge.

There are only two things that affect REAL sensitivity as far as sensor design goes (three if you factor in downstream readout logic): Total sensor area and quantum efficiency. If you do throw in downstream read logic, then read noise also plays a role, but in Canon sensors readout logic is primarily off-die, so not actually a function of the sensor. Increase sensor area, increase sensitivity. Increase quantum efficiency, increase sensitivity. You can split photodiodes to your hearts content...so long as they are contained within the same total sensor area, splitting them really doesn't to jack to improve anything. A given amount of light is a given amount of light. Nothing done after you've gathered that given amount of light is going to change the original amount. Pixel size is largely irrelevant until you are reach limited. Only in reach-limited situations does pixel size matter, however have no illusions...smaller pixels mean more noise, less dynamic range. Always. The benefit of smaller pixels in reach limited scenarios is resolution, not better overall IQ.


----------



## pdirestajr (May 27, 2014)

The 7D2 will be amazing and change the world. Nothing will ever be the same.


----------



## Don Haines (May 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> I think you've made a lot of wild guesses, assumptions and crazy speculative leaps. You make the assumption that Canon has QPAF technology, they do not. (Based on current patent filings, no one does...some competitors are finally developing their own DPAF-like patents. Canon's own subsequent patents to DPAF, some only a few months old, still indicate DUAL photodiodes, not quad. The changes have to do with sensitivity alone, and those sensitivity changes have to do purely with AF technology, the image readout technology is still exactly the same...binned.)



Although I think QPAF is possible, I don't think we will see it anytime soon. Since the pixels are binned, you could achieve the same results with having alternating pixels split vertically and horizontally and it would make for far simpler circuitry that could detect both vertical and horizontal shift.


----------



## surapon (May 27, 2014)

Dear Canon Co. and Friends.
For me, If 7D MK II is better AF , Similar to 5D MK III's AF system = I will buy 2 of them for my spare bodies.
Well, Touch screen LCD system/ function, similar to EOS-M will make better system for me too.
Just dream.
Surapon


----------



## Don Haines (May 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> Every time you split a photodiode, each resulting smaller photodiode is *less sensitive* to light...it has a smaller area.



When you split a photodiode in two, you get LESS than half the light in each half. There is an amount of waste real-estate around the edges of a cell. To illustrate with a simple example, let's say the manufacturing process has a resolution of 1 unit and a pixel is 10x10 units square. You have a waste area of 1 unit around the outside of the photodiode so you end up with an 8x8 photodiode and 64% of the surface area used to gather light. By splitting the photodiode, you end up with 2 3x8 photodiodes, or 48% of the surface area used to collect light.

Yes, you can use microlenses to counter this, but perfection (which can never be achieved) would get you back to even with the single photodiode.


----------



## NancyP (May 27, 2014)

Well, I am going to be optimistic. My 60D will last until the 7D2 shows up. And I want the 7D2 for a birding camera - the reach is important. Also important is AF at f/8. I hand-hold a 400mm f/5.6L for all my birding photos, and if I successfully bulk up my scrawny arms, have plans for a hand-held 500mm or 600mm f/4.


----------



## jrista (May 27, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Every time you split a photodiode, each resulting smaller photodiode is *less sensitive* to light...it has a smaller area.
> ...



Aye, this is very true. There are spatial losses. Based on Canon's patents, I don't think the waste is quite as significant as your basic example with the units. It's probably more on the order of each pixel being 100x100 units square, losing maybe 5 units around due to wiring and other amp/readout transistors. Then there may be a 1-unit gap between the two halves of the split photodiode. So there are losses, but maybe not quite as extreme as your 10x10 example. 

Regardless, there is still no way to construe DPAF or some hypothetical future QPAF as being some magic bullet to increasing either the readout performance nor dynamic range of Canon sensors. ;P That's a myth that just won't die, it seems. It's like the horse that was beat, and is now undead. It just keeps coming back for more brains...


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> Palettemediaproduktion said:
> 
> 
> > This is my guess. What do you think?
> ...



Exactly my thoughts after reading the post. 
:


----------



## Tugela (May 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> Speculation. As much as people like to use DSLRs for video, video is still the secondary purpose of this kind of camera. I don't think Canon is focusing solely on improving the video capabilities of the 7D II...especially because it's an APS-C camera. It is simply incapable of the same kind of thin DOF cinematic look and feel that the 5D II became famous for due to it's cropped sensor. I don't think the 7D II will be a particularly popular video DSLR. It might be somewhat popular, especially if it has some enhanced video features, but it isn't going to be the cinematic DSLR powerhouse that gave so many movies and TV shows reason to use it for professional prime time/big screen productions.



Which is the reason why the GH3 and GH4 were total failures in sales :

No one would *ever* buy a camera like that....oh, wait....they do....how can that be? Very weird, there must be something wrong with those customers.


----------



## jrista (May 27, 2014)

Tugela said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Speculation. As much as people like to use DSLRs for video, video is still the secondary purpose of this kind of camera. I don't think Canon is focusing solely on improving the video capabilities of the 7D II...especially because it's an APS-C camera. It is simply incapable of the same kind of thin DOF cinematic look and feel that the 5D II became famous for due to it's cropped sensor. I don't think the 7D II will be a particularly popular video DSLR. It might be somewhat popular, especially if it has some enhanced video features, but it isn't going to be the cinematic DSLR powerhouse that gave so many movies and TV shows reason to use it for professional prime time/big screen productions.
> ...



Your missing my point. I'm not saying 7D II's wont sell for video. I'm saying that won't be the primary reason they sell...not by a very long shot.

The reasons the GH3 and GH4 are successes in sales has not been determined to be solely due to their video features. They are also good CAMERAS. The notion that DSLRs sell best because they have video features is an ASSUMPTION. It is not backed up by any data. Sure, more will sell because of video, because people who want a DSLR for video purposes will buy them, but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of sales are due to PHOTOGRAPHERS buying them for of PHOTOGRAPHY. That's the case for pretty much every DSLR or Mirrorless with video features...they are still cameras, designed for still photography, and far more of pretty much any camera model you bring up will sell significantly more for photography purposes.

As far as the 7D II being a better seller for video than the 5D III, I don't think so. The larger sensor in the 5D III is extremely appealing for that cinematic look and feel. I'm not saying no 7D II's will sell for video purposes, but I don't think that video features will be the *primary *reason the 7D II sells. I still think the 7D II will sell *primarily *because of action photographers, particularly bird and wildlife photographers, want a camera with high resolution, lots of reach, and a damn fast frame rate (and doesn't cost a mint and a half to buy.)


----------



## streestandtheatres (May 28, 2014)

NancyP said:


> Well, I am going to be optimistic. My 60D will last until the 7D2 shows up. And I want the 7D2 for a birding camera - the reach is important. Also important is AF at f/8. I hand-hold a 400mm f/5.6L for all my birding photos, and if I successfully bulk up my scrawny arms, have plans for a hand-held 500mm or 600mm f/4.



+1 for the desire for AF at f8. To be honest, being able to set iso ranges in various modes would make me happy. In my experience the 400 5.6 is great if you get the exposure just right, but at higher iso this is tricky, and a highly customizable 'auto' iso would be endlessly useful. If I'm walking through a forest, being able to switch quickly (half a second) from iso 400-800 @f8 for bif, and then to 800-2000 @5.6 for a bird on a perch would be terrific, especially if I was also able to keep ss above 1/1250.


----------



## Tugela (May 28, 2014)

It will sell because it is an all purpose imaging unit. In the case of a new 7D, the properties of a crop sensor that are attractive for still photographers in certain applications are just as attractive to videographers taking video instead of stills. A video centric 7D will be more attractive to sport and wildlife videographers than a 5D would, for the exact same reasons as stills.

In the modern era a camera needs to be able to perform both types of imaging well to really succeed as a general purpose imaging device (which is how the average owner would use it).

The concepts of consumer/prosumer cameras being dedicated still or video cameras is an outdated idea that properly belongs in the past.


----------



## jrista (May 28, 2014)

Tugela said:


> It will sell because it is an all purpose imaging unit. In the case of a new 7D, the properties of a crop sensor that are attractive for still photographers in certain applications are just as attractive to videographers taking video instead of stills. A video centric 7D will be more attractive to sport and wildlife videographers than a 5D would, for the exact same reasons as stills.
> 
> In the modern era a camera needs to be able to perform both types of imaging well to really succeed as a general purpose imaging device (which is how the average owner would use it).
> 
> The concepts of consumer/prosumer cameras being dedicated still or video cameras is an outdated idea that properly belongs in the past.



I've never made any point about consumer/prosumer cameras being dedicated still or video cameras.

None of this changes the point I was making. I was debating the points made by Pallette about the reasons behind why Canon might add or enhance the video features of the 7D II. His points were based in the notion that Canon made somekind of mistake with the 5D III, and that they would correct that mistake with the 7D II. It's a false notion. Canon will fix problems in the 5D III with the 5D IV. Those who might have bought the 5D III for video and passed it up won't be buying a 7D II as an alternative...they are most likely going to want a full frame sensor for the cinematic quality it offers when using EF lenses, which means the only camera that Canon can "fix" any presumed problems with the 5D III's video is in the 5D IV. 

That video will somehow make the 7D II sell like hotcakes is another mistaken notion. Video is certainly an endemic feature of DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras now, but it isn't the primary reason DSLRs like the 7D II sell. It isn't even the primary reason cameras like the 5D III and 5D II sell or sold. For every person doing cinematography with a 5D II, there were a dozen doing landscapes, and at least a dozen more doing weddings. That doesn't count all the dozen other photographers using the 5D II for other STILL photography purposes. All for each and every individual who actually bought the 5D II for the purpose of doing video...EXTRA sales of the camera that primarily intended to use it's secondary feature set. The amount of photographers using still camera DSLRs for photography completely swamps the amount of photographers or cinematographers using them for video.

Any failures with the 5D III, at least any failures that have a significant impact on the bottom line for sales numbers, primarily have to do with the core functionality and core technology. The sensor, the AF unit, ergonomics. Canon MIGHT have "lost" a few customers here and there because the 5D III, which DOES have many improvements for video over the 5D II, might not have the specific video feature they want (i.e RAW HDMI out). Most of the reasons why video people might have skipped the 5D III have also been fixed by Magic Lantern, so most of the points are moot these days anyways. I don't doubt that Canon will be improving the 7D II. I highly doubt those improvements will have a particularly significant impact on the number of units Canon will sell, given it's predecessors primary use cases.


----------



## Palettemediaproduktion (Jun 9, 2014)

Here is some interesting research on Quad Pixel tech from a couple of guys at Aptina. Read about it and let me know if you think it might open up the discussion a bit more. The future demands for HDR video and the computational techniques being discussed in this work by Gordon Wan, Xiangli Li, Gennadiy Agranov, Marc Levoy and Mark Horowitz.

https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/gordon-multibucket-jssc12.pdf


----------



## jrista (Jun 9, 2014)

Palettemediaproduktion said:


> Here is some interesting research on Quad Pixel tech from a couple of guys at Aptina. Read about it and let me know if you think it might open up the discussion a bit more. The future demands for HDR video and the computational techniques being discussed in this work by Gordon Wan, Xiangli Li, Gennadiy Agranov, Marc Levoy and Mark Horowitz.
> 
> https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/gordon-multibucket-jssc12.pdf



That isn't quad-pixel technology. There is still a single pixel "per pixel", a single photo-diode "per pixel". It is multi-"bucket" technology. Just reading the abstract (haven't had time to read the entire paper yet), this is a means of reading out each photodiode (one photodiode per pixel, so no relation to Canon DPAF) multiple times per exposure. The "buckets" allow independent storage of pixel charge each partial read cycle, which can then be later combined (binned) to produce a signal charge MUCH greater than that of the photodiode itself. In the case of a four-bucket design, the total charge of the pixel, and therefor it's SNR and dynamic range, can be up to around four times that of a classic single pixel. 

This is effectively a means of achieving hardware HDR, performed within the sensor itself, at the time of exposure and readout. I don't know the specifics of how it actually works yet (have to read the paper), but it sounds intriguing. 

I would NOT draw any parallels between this and Canon's DPAF technology though...the two are entirely different, and serve different purposes. 

(Frankly, I find the multi-bucket pixel concept far more intriguing than DPAF...if we just apply the concept to the 1D X, assuming ~1.3e- intrinsic sensor noise per pixel and a 90ke- FWC, this would extend the 1D X's intrinsic (pre-read) dynamic range from 16.14 stops (20 * log(90376/1.3)) to 18.15 stops (20 * log((90375*4) / 1.3)). Factoring in read noise, 38e-, that reduces the 1D X DR to 13.3 stops, however that is still over two stops better than the 11.2 stops it gets currently. If Canon can reduce their read noise to the same range as Exmor, ~3e-, then the 1D X with a quad-bucket design would still have 16.93 stops of DR...that's more than is possible with a 16-bit ADC, and I highly doubt we'll see anything like an 18- or 20-bit ADC in a DSLR any time soon.)


----------



## FEBS (Jun 9, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I hope 7D Mark ii will be a great camera for fast action, lighter and cheaper than 1DX. Therefore, I would like an AF system as good as 5D Mark III. And most important, the amount of chroma noise at ISO 3200 as good as 5D Mark III at ISO 6400. I do not need more than 16 megapixels, and I think with this pixel density is feasible to achieve low noise as I hope.



+1

Same idea of 7D2, if that's the case, I buy change my 7D for a 7D2, otherwise for another 5D3


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 12, 2014)

sanj said:


> I am wondering when (and if ever) the latest crop cameras will be able to compare with 5d2. Is 6 years enough for technology to reach a point where new crop camera's catch up to full frame?


sanj, the 70D hasn't caught up to the original 5D yet, which was released nearly 8 years before the 70D:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-70D-versus-Canon-EOS-5D___895_176
Ignore the "Score", and the DR measurement is close enough to be considered a margin of error.


----------



## DominoDude (Jun 12, 2014)

Palettemediaproduktion said:


> Here is some interesting research on Quad Pixel tech from a couple of guys at Aptina. Read about it and let me know if you think it might open up the discussion a bit more. The future demands for HDR video and the computational techniques being discussed in this work by Gordon Wan, Xiangli Li, Gennadiy Agranov, Marc Levoy and Mark Horowitz.
> 
> https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/gordon-multibucket-jssc12.pdf



That concept seems really interesting!
I've had thoughts about why no one seem to have adopted something similar to a logarithmic amplifier. That was something I saw in certain radar equipment, where one typically sent out a few kW, and expected to get signal back that were only some fW (10-15W). However, you couldn't be sure on the returning signals strength, so the receivers had to cope with signals that were several magnitudes greater - without frying the entire array of discrete components/transistors/tubes.

In short, that "problem" were solved with stages of amplifiers that, when saturated, automatically opened up for the next stage to take care of the signal handling without ever hitting any ceilings, or frying any components.

In sensors you would've the problem of miniaturising this concept and making some 20 million photon receivers behave identical, but all that counts in the end is counting photons. Every pixel is there for the sole purpose of counting the number of photons that hits it (preferably coming in from the lens). And you don't want to fill your buckets.
Since most of us take our shots in temperatures above 0K, we always have to deal with thermal noise. A logarithmic approach to handling our combinations of signal + noise wouldn't be bad.


Sorry for sidestepping the original idea of this thread.


----------



## jrista (Jun 13, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> Palettemediaproduktion said:
> 
> 
> > Here is some interesting research on Quad Pixel tech from a couple of guys at Aptina. Read about it and let me know if you think it might open up the discussion a bit more. The future demands for HDR video and the computational techniques being discussed in this work by Gordon Wan, Xiangli Li, Gennadiy Agranov, Marc Levoy and Mark Horowitz.
> ...



What your talking about is a photomultiplier. That is actually a very different concept still, and is neither similar to the multi-bucket pixels nor DPAF.  

Photomultipliers do use mult-stage amplifiers to significantly amplify extremely low signals by a significant magnitude, without requiring ultra-specialized amplifiers that can do so without frying themselves. But that's just a more complicated means of amplifying a weak signal. It doesn't actually improve the signal strength itself, so it can neither reduce noise, nor support something like HDR.

The multi-bucket pixel concept in that paper effectively embeds analog memory into the pixel. Global shutter sensors already do this, but they only have a single memory (when the exposure is done, every pixel's charge is immediately pushed to it's memory at once, the pixels are reset, then the memory can be read out in the background while the next exposure occurs.) Multi-bucket memory allows charge to be pushed to memory more than once, which expands the dynamic range by N times. At the point of read, the charge stored in each bucket is then binned as the pixels are read out.

That is significantly different than a photomultiplier, as instead of amplifying the signal (which also amplifies the noise, and does not actually improve the quality of the signal itself), it allows longer exposures combined with multiple "memory pushes" to literally enhance the quality of the signal itself WITHOUT amplification. THAT....that is what is so intriguing about the multibucket concept.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Jun 13, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> what I am saying is that if the 7D Mk2 is 16+ MP it will be of no use to me



Agreed.


----------



## Harry Muff (Jun 13, 2014)

It will shoot in black & white only. You heard it here first...


----------



## sanj (Jun 13, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I am wondering when (and if ever) the latest crop cameras will be able to compare with 5d2. Is 6 years enough for technology to reach a point where new crop camera's catch up to full frame?
> ...



Oh! Thanks for this. I will not expect much then.


----------



## NancyP (Jun 13, 2014)

I am hoping for overall incremental improvements in many functions, with overall significantly better user experience. You will notice that Nikon differentiated its high MP camera from its jack-of-all-trades flagship pro camera, and that new technology is introduced in lower-end products before the flagship model gets it. Pros want rock-solid reliability and excellent ergonomics, in addition to image quality, burst speed, etc


----------



## DominoDude (Jun 15, 2014)

--8< --Snip!--8<--


jrista said:


> What your talking about is a photomultiplier. That is actually a very different concept still, and is neither similar to the multi-bucket pixels nor DPAF.
> 
> Photomultipliers do use mult-stage amplifiers to significantly amplify extremely low signals by a significant magnitude, without requiring ultra-specialized amplifiers that can do so without frying themselves. But that's just a more complicated means of amplifying a weak signal. It doesn't actually improve the signal strength itself, so it can neither reduce noise, nor support something like HDR.
> 
> ...



*nods* Yeah, I see what you mean. I think I lost myself slightly and had trouble finding a good way to formulate myself in English (not my primary lingo). I, certainly, do agree that the multi-bucket looks very interesting and promising, and hopefully it will boil down to some useful technology that can be used by many parties.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 15, 2014)

We will all just have to wait and see!
Canon are not going to produce what I want ( a 10/12mp high ISO, fast apsc camera) as too many people out there are convinced that the current 18mp+ apsc sensors gives more "Reach" - I have tried them - they don't really, well just a little but with a whole host of compromises, in the real world larger sensors win hands down.
Let's hope the high MP fans don't win and that they (Canon) actually produce a useful upgrade over the 7D!
Many will disagree with me - that's fine - but I have tried them all (Canon's and the better Nikons) and the larger sensor lower MP cameras produce the goods. High (12mp +) small sensors are just too much of a compromise.


----------



## scottburgess (Jun 16, 2014)

Hey Jrista, would you be consider buying a 7Dii for conversion as a full-time astrograph? What feature set would be ideal for that application--fewer or more Mp, sensor technology, add on features... ??


----------



## jrista (Jun 16, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> Hey Jrista, would you be consider buying a 7Dii for conversion as a full-time astrograph? What feature set would be ideal for that application--fewer or more Mp, sensor technology, add on features... ??



Well, that question is not really as simple as it might sound.  Astrophotography is a different beast. 

In normal photography, there is pretty much NOTHING wrong with having more resolution...more resolution is pretty much always a good thing. While, in the context of cropping, pixel size can affect noise levels, sensor size and quantum efficiency are generally the primary determining factors of image noise...so the general rule of thumb should pretty much always be: Get as much resolution as you can.

When it comes to other features...like the AF system, metering, frame rate, etc. (all of which I generally consider AT LEAST as important as sensor IQ, if not more important depending on your style and type of photography), you should generally go for the best you can that meets your needs. The 7D II is an action photography camera, and while sensor IQ is important, it's really the frame rate and AF system that are paramount. 

When it comes to astrophotography, none of the "add on features" matter. They are pretty much worthless, so long as you actually have AF. (More on why in a moment.) Resolution in astrophotography is also evaluated in an entirely different way as well, and for the most part, you want to "match" sensor resolution to lens resolving power in a specific way. The term used to describe this matching of resolutions is "image scale", and I'll go into detail in a second here. Lets start with a couple of exceptions to the image scale guidelines.

First, for those who like to image star waveforms (diffraction patterns), for the purposes of analysis of things like double and multiple-star systems, exoplanet investigation, etc. resolution is absolute king. You want as much resolution as you can get. It is not uncommon to use focal lengths of thousands of millimeters, even ten thousand millimeters or so. The smaller your pixels, the better your sensor will be able to resolve the airy pattern. In terms of normal resolution in normal photography, you really aren't gaining "resolution" here. These systems for surveying star patterns are usually fully diffraction limited. Were talking about F/Ratios in the range of f/29 to f/40 or beyond. In regular photography, that would cause significant blurring because diffraction is softening the image. In star surveying, however, your working with individual points of light...there is no blurring, your just magnifying the actual diffraction effect, and your analyzing it directly. A LOT can be learned about stars by analyzing heavily magnified diffraction patterns. 

Second, planetary imaging tends to be high focal length/high f-ratio. Planets are pretty small in the grand scheme of things, so again it is not uncommon to see thousands of millimeters focal length and high f-ratios in the f/10-f/20 range. Planetary imaging is quite different than normal astrophotography, it is usually done with video, at high crops and ultra high frame rates (320x240px @ 200fps is not unheard of), and having lots of resolution helps. Planetary imaging is all about superresolution and "seeing through" atmospheric turbulence. Having a lot of sensor resolution in this circumstance is also helpful. In the end, many thousands of frames, some of which may appear quite blurry due to atmospheric turbulence, are processed, the bad ones are thrown away, the best ones are kept, and stacked with a superresolution algorithm to produce crisp, high resolution images if planets. 

In both of the above cases, small pixels are a huge benefit. When it comes to imaging larger objects, DSOs or Deep Sky/Space Objects, resolution is a bit different. This is where Image Scale comes into play. Image scale is an angular measure of arcseconds per pixel (angular, because pretty much everything in astrophotography is done in angular space...pointing, tracking, coordinates, etc.) You determine the arcseconds per pixel (image scale) by using the following formula:


```
imageScale = (206.265 * pixelSize) / focalLength
```

In the case of the current 7D, with a 600mm lens (what I've been using so far), my image scale is 1.478"/px. In the case of a larger, longer telescope, such as the AT8RC astrograph, which has a focal length of 1625mm, the image scale would be 0.546"/px. If I was using that telescope with a 2x or 3x barlow on it, which multiplies the focal length like a teleconverter, image scale would be 0.273"/px and 0.182"/px, respectively. The image scale becomes critically important once you understand how the resolving power of a telescope affects the distribution of light at the sensor.

Before we get into that, a quick sidebar on star sizes. Star size, from earth-bound telescopes, is ultimately a product of their native size combined with the impact of seeing. Seeing, the term we give to how well we can see the true form of stars due to atmospheric turbulence, can blur stars and make them larger than they actually are. On a night of excellent seeing, where atmospheric turbulence is low, the average star size for naked-eye star gets close to their true size, around 1.8". When seeing is worse than excellent, the average star size can increase to 2" or 3", possibly even larger. For the most part, we figure average seeing produces stars around 2.2", or a little over two arcseconds. Ok, now that you understand star size, back to the discussion of image scale.

In astrophotography, we aim to match lens resolution to sensor resolution in such a way that our image scale falls somewhere between 0.75" to 1" per pixel, or 0.75"/px to 1.0"/px. For stars that are 2"-3" in size, this results in each star covering about a little more than a 2x2 pixel grid of pixels. This avoids a problem where, when image scale is too large, stars end up looking like square pixels, instead of round dots. It also avoids another problem, the light spread problem, which I'll go into in a bit. In my case, my seeing makes my stars about 2.8-3.2" in size (I don't have very good seeing most of the time here in Colorado) in most nights. On the best nights (like two nights ago) I've had my seeing as low as 2.2". For the average case, my image scale of 1.478" is pretty decent, although for smaller stars, it does tend to make the smaller/dimmer stars a little square. An image scale of 1-1.2" would be more ideal. 

Beyond simply avoiding square stars, keeping your image scale at a reasonable level can be important to achieving the right exposure "depth". This isn't a term we use in normal photography, as we tend to work with relatively gargantuan quantities of light. It only takes a fraction of a second to saturate our pixels with normal photography, and we often have significant problems with dynamic range in the sense that our scenes contain considerably more than we can capture in those extremely small timeslices. In astrophotography, we often have the opposite problem...it can be very difficult to saturate our pixels and achieve a reasonable signal to noise ratio. If our image scale is too small, say 0.5", 0.2", 0.1" then that means that the light from one single star is spread out over a 4x4, 10x10, or 20x20 matrix of pixels. The smaller our image scale, the less saturated each pixel is going to be. This is a problem where light is being spread out over too great an area on the sensor, which greatly impacts our ability to get a saturated exposure with a strong signal, and therefor high SNR. 

If you are using a monochrome CCD camera designed for astrophotography, you usually have the option of "binning" pixels during readout. A sensor with 4.5µm pixels can be binned 2x2, 3x3, 4x4, sometimes even nxn. That gives you the option of having 8µm, 13.5µm, 16µm pixels if you need. As you increase focal length, binning, usually 2x2, becomes very useful as it helps you keep your image scale within that "ideal" range. Electronically binned pixels are effectively equivalent to having larger pixels, which is a bit different than averaging pixels in post with downsampling. With downsampling, you reduce noise and increase SNR, but don't actually improve signal strength, where as with binning, you DO increase signal strength. 

When using a DSLR, it can be difficult to achieve an ideal image scale, since you cannot bin. That limits you to using a certain range of focal lengths, or else means you have to expose for a much longer period of time to get the same results. Now...in with the 7D II. I do not yet know what it holds (I think Don wrote a humorus post on that very subject last night on one thread or another, basically epitomizing how we really don't know JACK about the 7D II, despite all the "informative" rumors! ) Assuming the 7D II gets the much-needed boost to quantum efficiency it really needs to perform well (I'm really hoping it lands somewhere around 56% Q.E.), then I think, for its pixel size, that it could be a very good performer for astrophotography. 

It would ultimately depend on the other sensor factors...the most important of which is the IR filter. DSLRs are, in the grand scheme of things, are actually really CRAPPY for astrophotography, The IR filters block out most of the red light at the most critical emission band: Hydrogen-alpha, or 656.28nm wavelength. Most of emission nebula in our skies are comprised of hydrogen, which when excited, emits light in a few very narrow bands. Hydrogen has two key emission bands for astrophotography: Hydrogen-alpha (Ha) and Hydrogen-Beta (Hb). Ha is a very red band, and Hb is a very blue band, which results in a pinkish-red color. Most DSLRs pass a mere 12% or less at the Ha band, while a monochrome CCD will usually pass anywhere from 45% to 80% at the Ha band.

You did mention a full-time astro mod of the 7D II. There are a few astro conversion mod options available for DSLRs. You can simply replace the IR/UV filters in the filter stack with Baader or Astrodon filters that are better-suited to astrophotography, where they pass 90% or more of the light through the entire visible spectrum, with a "square" falloff into IR. You can also get full spectrum filters that will block UV, but pass the entire visible spectrum then gradually fall off into deep IR (useful for infrared imaging as well as astro imaging so long as you use an additional IR block filter when doing visual work). Finally you can do full mono mods, where the CFA (and the microlenses) are actually scraped off the sensor. With a full mono mod, you can greatly increase the sensitivity of the sensor, but it becomes useless for any other kind of astrophotography. It should also be warned, converting any DSLR for astro use can greatly diminish it's usefulness for regular photography. Even a basic astro IR/UV mod has a considerable impact on the reds in your photography, and you will forever be bound to using custom white balance modes...none of the defaults will ever work again.

So, if the 7D II comes in with a much-needed Q.E. boost, and so long as you are using moderate focal lengths (400-1200 I'd say), it would make for a decent astrocam. If you modded it with a Baader or Astrodon IR filter, it would probably be quite excellent, in the grand scheme of DSLRs used for astrophotography. It will never compare to even the cheapest thermally regulated CCD camera, and in the case of some of the lower end ones, you can spend a mere $1500 on a good cooled CCD, where as the 7D II is likely to hit the streets with a price at least $500 higher, if not more. If you REALLY want to get into astrophotography, I highly recommend looking into some of the lower end cooled CCDs, as even the cheapest one is likely to be better for astro than any DSLR, modded or otherwise.


----------



## NancyP (Jun 16, 2014)

Good explanation, jrista. I hadn't thought much about binning capacity wrt astrophotography, but it seems quite useful.


----------



## scottburgess (Jun 17, 2014)

I can't thank you enough for the thorough reply, Jrista. My wife is interested in starting astrophotography, and there was much useful information in that post.  Sorry that darker skies aren't available in your area, though I wonder if summertime in the Rockies further west would allow access to high elevations and perhaps less atmospheric interference? The West Coast is blessed with potential access to dark sky zones from Stone Mountain Provincial Park and Wells Grey Provincial Park (both in British Columbia), all the way down to the Warner Mtns and Siskiyous in northernmost California. Go west, young man, go west! ;D

A couple follow-up questions:

1) What keeps one from binning? Is it a physical problem resulting from the Bayer sensor, or just an image processing issue? It seems to me like there might solutions to a purely software problem. If you have a TIFF, you might be able to post-process that with some sort of binning algorithm. One might also enhance the camera firmware à la Magic Lantern, which wouldn't necessarily destroy the general utility of the camera for other purposes. Even if the Bayer sensor is the issue, some interpolation might be doable from slightly offset images though obtaining the correct offset might be difficult.

2) If I am understanding you correctly, a 5Dii/5Diii might make a better pairing with the AT8RC. The increased pixel pitch would offset the slightly longer focal length, and assuming that 1200mm is near the maximum that the 7D can support those bodies fall just a tad more comfortably in the useable range. [I think the AT8RC actually has an eyepiece large enough to allow full frame coverage.] Am I reasoning correctly here? Is this combination popular?

3) The mod I was thinking of was indeed removing the IR and/or UV filters in the stack, but I saw the Astronomik clip-in filters for DSLRs that narrow-pass for hydrogen-alpha, oxygen-iii, and other wavelengths, so one could collect additional stack frames with those to pump up selected color bands, right? It increases the stack size required, but leaves the camera ready for general purpose photography after the filter is removed. [Unfortunately, it looks like Astronomik does not support Canon FF bodies.]

4) Are there comparable resolution monochrome CCDs to the ~20Mp general purpose DSLRs but at lower cost, and can one use color filters on these to efficiently recreate a color image? Would that increase or decrease the stack size needed to create an image relative to the DSLR stack, assuming similar resolution? The CCDs I've seen seem to be lower resolution, or rather expensive once comparable resolution and the requisite cooling unit is factored in. Most of the comparably priced CCDs I've seen are under 4 Mp. Perhaps the cooling unit isn't necessary here, since our mountain nights tend to be chilly.

5) If the 7Dii turns out to be a high Mp APS-C camera, say ~36Mp, then the pitch might become so small (around 3 micrometers) that it might not be useable for deep sky photography since the useable focal range might be only about 250mm - 750mm? [Or alternatively would this put enough pixels on each star that one could use firmware to bin, even despite a Bayer sensor?]


----------



## jrista (Jun 17, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> I can't thank you enough for the thorough reply, Jrista. My wife is interested in starting astrophotography, and there was much useful information in that post.  Sorry that darker skies aren't available in your area, though I wonder if summertime in the Rockies further west would allow access to high elevations and perhaps less atmospheric interference? The West Coast is blessed with potential access to dark sky zones from Stone Mountain Provincial Park and Wells Grey Provincial Park (both in British Columbia), all the way down to the Warner Mtns and Siskiyous in northernmost California. Go west, young man, go west! ;D



It isn't that dark skies are not available...within about a two hour drive, there are skies that approach some of the darkest on earth. In the north western corner of the state, there are skies that should actually be about the darkest on earth. Darkness isn't the problem...seeing (atmospheric turbulence) is the problem. That affects any state, any region, where the main path of the jetstream passes over. During late winter/spring, the jetstream tends to stretch from the north western region of the country, down through colorado, and back up to the north eastern region of the country. Seeing in that whole band tends to be pretty crappy. There are periods of the year, the heart of summer and early fall, the heart of winter (mainly december) where the jetstream moves off more, and seeing improves. You have to get really high, in regions where the jetstream doesn't frequent, to get "exceptional" seeing...there aren't many places on earth like that. The mountains of Chile are one such region. 

I am hoping that July and August will bring fewer clouds, less weather overall, and better seeing conditions. 




scottburgess said:


> A couple follow-up questions:
> 
> 1) What keeps one from binning? Is it a physical problem resulting from the Bayer sensor, or just an image processing issue? It seems to me like there might solutions to a purely software problem. If you have a TIFF, you might be able to post-process that with some sort of binning algorithm. One might also enhance the camera firmware à la Magic Lantern, which wouldn't necessarily destroy the general utility of the camera for other purposes. Even if the Bayer sensor is the issue, some interpolation might be doable from slightly offset images though obtaining the correct offset might be difficult.



Binning is very specifically a hardware thing. It occurs at the point the sensor is read. It literally means to combine the charges of NxN neighboring pixels into a single output charge. So, if you have a 100x100 pixel sensor, and you bin 2x2, then you effectively have a 50x50 pixel sensor. Binning can also only be done (at least properly) with a monochrome sensor...there is no logical way to bin a color sensor, since each neighboring pixel is not the same thing. 

So there are two reason you cannot bin a color DSLR camera: It's color, and not monochrome...and, they usually do not contain the hardware to perform binning in the first place. Binning is hardware-only. The software counterpart would basically be downsampling. By downsampling 2x, you reduce the width and height by a factor of two, averaging together 2x2 regions of pixels (with a simple algorithm...bicubic is a bit more complex). Downsampling has the benefit of reducing noise by averaging, thus SNR improves. Binning has the benefit of increasing the actual signal strength, thus SNR improves. The latter is the better approach, at least for astrophotography, as good signal strength is key to lifting dim nebula or galaxy detail above the read noise floor. Any attempt to lift anything above the read noise floor MUST occur before readout occurs...otherwise its moot. 



scottburgess said:


> 2) If I am understanding you correctly, a 5Dii/5Diii might make a better pairing with the AT8RC. The increased pixel pitch would offset the slightly longer focal length, and assuming that 1200mm is near the maximum that the 7D can support those bodies fall just a tad more comfortably in the useable range. [I think the AT8RC actually has an eyepiece large enough to allow full frame coverage.] Am I reasoning correctly here? Is this combination popular?



You are indeed correct that, at least at the native focal length, the AT8RC and 5DIII/6D are a better combo. Technically speaking, the 6D is a superior astrophotography camera...it's actually the best in Canon's entire lineup. DSLR modders are also offering 6D modification now as well, and recent tests have indicated it's low read noise results in some exceptional results (you usually need really dark skies to get those results, though.)

In addition to barlow lenses, you can also use focal reducers with scopes like the AT8RC. The most popular for that particular scope is the Astro-Physics CCDT67. It is a 0.67x reducer by default, so it makes the scope's focal length 1089mm (assuming you actually space the imaging train out to actually achieve 0.67x...many people opt for ~0.75x reduction, which again gets you around 1219mm). Focal reducers and barlow lenses can be used to change the focal length of the scope, which for a given sensor changes the image scale. You could make the AT8RC work with a 7D or similar sensor, or you could make it work for sensors with much, much larger pixels (such as the 9µm pixel KAF-11000 series sensors, or the KAF-16803 series sensors, both of which have big pixels).

Changing the focal length obviously changes your field of view. At 1000-1200mm, your still relatively "wide field". At 3300mm, your getting into deep field or narrower field territory. Wide fields work better with small pixels, deep fields work better with large (or binned( pixels. 



scottburgess said:


> 3) The mod I was thinking of was indeed removing the IR and/or UV filters in the stack, but I saw the Astronomik clip-in filters for DSLRs that narrow-pass for hydrogen-alpha, oxygen-iii, and other wavelengths, so one could collect additional stack frames with those to pump up selected color bands, right? It increases the stack size required, but leaves the camera ready for general purpose photography after the filter is removed. [Unfortunately, it looks like Astronomik does not support Canon FF bodies.]



It's generally a bad idea to use narrow band filters with a color sensor of any kind. The color filter array, in either DSLRs or OSC (one-shot color) CCD cameras usually keep the total Q.E. per channel to 33% (R/B) or 40% (G) at most. It usually requires about 20 minute exposures with a high Q.E. CCD camera (~56% or higher) to image any given narrow-band channel. That is with a mono sensor, where you have a full fill factor. 

With color sensors, for each narrow band filter, only one set of pixels is going to get any light. So it isn't just that you get around (usually less than) 33% Q.E. with red pixels...you get 33% Q.E. and only 25% fill factor, on top of the significantly lower total light due to the filtration going on. Assuming your telescope is transmitting 90% of the light...that is 0.9 * 0.33 * 0.25, or only 7.425% of the light reaching the scope actually releases an electron in photodiodes. The poor fill factor creates other problems for registration, calibration, and stacking as well. 

In contrast, a monochrome sensor with 56% Q.E. is going to gather 0.9 * 0.56 percent of the light and release electrons in all of it's photodiodes, or 50.4% of the light reaching the scope. The 100% fill factor makes registration, calibration, and stacking far more effective. If it takes 20 minutes to properly expose say a single Ha band image deeply enough, then it will take 6.79x longer for the DSLR to expose to the same level (approximately 136 minutes). There are relatively few mounts that can track well enough to do 20-30 minute exposures, and even fewer of those that could track well enough to support 136 minute exposures...ASA's mounts come to mind, as they are direct-drive mounts with an inherent <0.1" periodic error.

There is another issue with exposures that long. Noise. Read noise, ironically, becomes a distant background factor for long exposures like this. Dark current noise becomes a vastly greater problem. For short exposures, the sub-second exposures common in normal photography, dark current is practically a non-problem. CDS takes care of it, and we never really have to think about it. But dark current accumulates over time, and it is temperature dependent. An average KAF sensor, like the KAF-8300M, might have about 0.02e-/px/s dark current noise at 0°C. That means that, at that temperature, for an exposure of 20 minutes, your dark current noise is 24e-. If you are using the 6D at ISO 800, read noise is 5.1e-, or almost 1/5th the amount of dark current noise. In other words, dark current swamps read noise. And that is for a thermally regulated CCD that was designed to have low read noise (and ironically, it isn't even the lowest, Sony's new ICX 694, for example, has the lowest dark current levels ever heard of, at 0.003e-/px/s...after 20 minutes, total dark current accumulation would only be 3.6e-, still under the read noise floor). DSLRs have SIGNIFICANTLY more read noise, say an order of magnitude more (~0.2e-/px/s @ 0°C), and on top of that, they run hotter (these days, my 7D and 5D III run around 27-32°C). Dark current doubles for every 5.8°C, which means that at 30°C, it's ~1.03e-/px/s. After 20 minutes of exposure, dark current would be 1236e-! CDS takes care of some of that, however there is always a residual as the pixels and CDS units cannot count identically....they reside in different regions of the sensor die, and the discrepancies can be quite large. On a warm night, dark current noise can be as high as several hundred e-, again completely swamping read noise (and possibly even topping photon shot noise.) 

If you want to do narrow band imaging...you should seriously look into getting a proper thermally regulated CCD camera. You can find some of the entry-level Atik CCDs, some of which use the new ultra low dark current Sony sensors, for around $1500. That is for the camera only...a filter wheel would also be required for color or narrow band imaging, and that is usually a few hundred more. But for astrophotography, if you are considering modding a brand new 7D II, it is the better option by far. (Note that narrow band imaging is a great way to get started with AP in the city under light polluted skies...the narrow bands, which are 3nm to 12nm or so wide, block out not only all the light pollution, but you can also usually image during a full moon if your not within about an arc-hour of it.)



scottburgess said:


> 4) Are there comparable resolution monochrome CCDs to the ~20Mp general purpose DSLRs but at lower cost, and can one use color filters on these to efficiently recreate a color image? Would that increase or decrease the stack size needed to create an image relative to the DSLR stack, assuming similar resolution? The CCDs I've seen seem to be lower resolution, or rather expensive once comparable resolution and the requisite cooling unit is factored in. Most of the comparably priced CCDs I've seen are under 4 Mp. Perhaps the cooling unit isn't necessary here, since our mountain nights tend to be chilly.



In terms of resolution, no. In terms of sensor area, yes. There are FF-sized CCDs (36x24mm, i.e. KAF-16803), and there are also 37.8x37.8mm "large format" CCD sensors (i.e. KAF-11002). These sensors are huge as far as astro imaging goes. Regular photographers are actually quite spoiled when it comes to sensor size. Amateur astrophotographers have been using 1/3" and 1/2" sized sensors for a very long time, and those are around or less than 1/2 the area of an APS-C sensor. The KAF-8300 sensor is an APS-C size. The KAF-8300 tends to roll into the middle of the cost range, usually about $4000 or so for a full camera package (camera, filter wheel, filters, and maybe an OAG.)

The larger format cameras, like the 16803 and 11002 are much more costly. They are usually about $8000 at least, and for the higher grade sensors, they can be as much as $45,000. If you want a full frame sensor, and want it to be monochrome, you could do a full mono mod on a 6D. You still wouldn't have binning, and you would have to find a filter wheel that would work with it (there are a few odd products that might.) For best performance, you'll probably want to build a cold box for it as well (peltier-cooled insulating box) with either a radiator or water cooling rig. Overall, the 6D, while it does have a large sensor, is never going to perform the same as a dedicated astro CCD cam that is thermally regulated. If you are serious enough about astrophotography to mod a brand new DSLR, then you should really invest your money into a CCD. Even a smaller APS-C sized KAF-8300 (like the SBIG STF-8300M) would be a superior performer for astro in the long run, especially if you want to do narrow band. 



scottburgess said:


> 5) If the 7Dii turns out to be a high Mp APS-C camera, say ~36Mp, then the pitch might become so small (around 3 micrometers) that it might not be useable for deep sky photography since the useable focal range might be only about 250mm - 750mm? [Or alternatively would this put enough pixels on each star that one could use firmware to bin, even despite a Bayer sensor?]



It really depends on what you want to image. The focal range from 200mm to 750mm is very wide field. Ultra wide field would be wider than about 180mm down to your 10mm to 14mm primes and zooms. Wide field is a really good place to be for a LOT of stuff. I use my 600mm lens for a reason...it gives me a very nice relatively wide field view of the sky, and has EXCELLENT image quality. If your interested in nebula, 600-800mm is actually sometimes even a little "tight"...it can be tough to frame some of the huge nebula that span hundreds to many thousands of light years at once. For example, even my 5D III cannot fully encompass the North American/Pelican nebula region of Cygnus, and it can't even come close to encompassing the entire molecular cloud within that constellation...I would need to mosaic somewhere around 15x20 panels (300 integrations, each of which would probably need a minimum of 50 subs, so a total of 15,000 individual light frame exposures.) 

There are reasons to use pretty much every focal length from 50mm all the way up through 3500mm just for imaging nebula (although the longer the focal length, the more difficult the job gets, as tracking and guiding smoothly at focal lengths over 2000mm can get very difficult...that's where spending the money on high end gear, like high end Astro-Physics, 10Micron, Software Bisque, and ASA mounts, all of which cost somewhere between $10k-$25k or so, becomes REALLY useful.) At long focal lengths, your zeroing in on very small parts of large nebula, say just a small part of pelican or just a small part of orion or just a small part of heart nebula. Your spreading the light out more, you need longer exposures to get deep exposures, mono sensors become increasingly important for their fill factor. At 250mm, you could image the entire region around Orion's belt and sword in one go, gathering data for horse head, flame, running man, and orion nebulas, as well as all the various reflection nebulas scattered about, and even including the greater extent of the molecular cloud around there (which permeates the entire constellation of Orion, and is most visible in Ha band.) At 600mm, you can zero in on just his belt, or just his sword, and get more detail on the flame/horse head region or the running man/orion nebula region.) 

The 7D II, even if it had a 30-40mp sensor, could still be used at a good image scale between 0.5" to 1", for imaging large, beautiful nebulous regions of the night sky. It would only be if you wanted to push your focal length and get in real close on much smaller parts of those nebula that you would find the 7D II's pixels to be wanting...too small, not gathering enough light each...then you'll want a KAF-11002 with it's square frame and huge 9 micron pixels, and you may even find that pixels that large are still not quite good enough. But you would have to be pretty advanced, and willing to spend a LOT of money, to even really begin to attempt imaging at that scale.

Start wide. Wide is easy. Wide is forgiving. Wide lets you suck in light from huge regions of the sky that are packed with beautiful detail. And the 7D II would do superbly well, for what it is....a "one shot color" camera. Don't bother using narrow band filtration with it, not worth it. Use DeepSkyStacker and Photoshop to start, and look into PixInsight for more advanced processing once you get the hang of things. Oh, and make sure you get at least a moderatly decent mount (I HIGHLY recommend starting with the Orion Atlas, an EQDIR cable, and EQMOD...GODSEND!), make sure you get a guiding setup of some kind, and use BackyardEOS (it has a focusing module that allows you to control the AF system of your EOS gear, if your using a Canon DSLR with a Canon lens...without BYEOS, I'd have been completely lost, and focusing would have been a much more significant and painful chore).


----------



## the blackfox (Jun 17, 2014)

yeah i agree ,whatever he said up above :-\ :


----------



## axtstern (Jun 17, 2014)

So I'm wondering: Dual Digic 5+ or single Digic 6
So I'm sure: 70D style Video AF
So I'm sure: GPS and WIFI
So I'm sure: 5DIII style AF for still
So I'm sure: deep raw buffer

What I fear will make me angry soon: 
3 month after I buy the 7dII which will be as soon as it is available, Canon will launch the 750D or 150D and besides the buffer and the still AF I fear it will have almost all of what I list above for 1/3 of the price.

Well at least I will not be bothered by a mode dial with a green window of shame....


----------



## tayassu (Jun 17, 2014)

I recently got the chance to test a 5DIII against my 7D; I tested sharpness, DR and noise in a highly unscientific way, shot a tree against the sun for DR and found only a slight advantage held by the 5D, sharpness got me about the same results (everything after an equal amount of processing in LR). What did really impress me was the high ISO performance of my old 7D. I shot RAW and applied moderate NR in Lightroom to each file of a row from 1600 to 12800. What I found out, was that, surprisingly, the 7D was only 1 stop worse than the 5DIII, so 1600ISO on my 7D look in 100% view like 3200ISO on the 5DIII!!! The gap grew very marginally from 6400ISO on the 7D upwards, but not even a third of a stop!! Of course, with the 7D, there's some crappy background noise at low ISO numbers, but the high ISO performance stunned me. I always assumed like minimum 2 stops difference between those two... 
So I will ask anybody, who got the same bodys: is that the same with your cameras or did I just have insanely infantile dreams about the 5DIII? 

About the specs: It would surprise me if the 7DII featured 'only' a 16 MP sensor, although I would be perfectly fine with that. To fit the majority of potential buyers, they will increase resolution to something like 21-24MP. The noise will most likely be like the 70D as a result of this increase.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 17, 2014)

tayassu said:


> I recently got the chance to test a 5DIII against my 7D; I tested sharpness, DR and noise in a highly unscientific way, shot a tree against the sun for DR and found only a slight advantage held by the 5D, sharpness got me about the same results (everything after an equal amount of processing in LR). What did really impress me was the high ISO performance of my old 7D. I shot RAW and applied moderate NR in Lightroom to each file of a row from 1600 to 12800. What I found out, was that, surprisingly, the 7D was only 1 stop worse than the 5DIII, so 1600ISO on my 7D look in 100% view like 3200ISO on the 5DIII!!! The gap grew very marginally from 6400ISO on the 7D upwards, but not even a third of a stop!! Of course, with the 7D, there's some crappy background noise at low ISO numbers, but the high ISO performance stunned me. I always assumed like minimum 2 stops difference between those two...
> So I will ask anybody, who got the same bodys: is that the same with your cameras or did I just have insanely infantile dreams about the 5DIII?
> 
> About the specs: It would surprise me if the 7DII featured 'only' a 16 MP sensor, although I would be perfectly fine with that. To fit the majority of potential buyers, they will increase resolution to something like 21-24MP. The noise will most likely be like the 70D as a result of this increase.



Or it could be that your comparison was highly unscientific and highly subjective, whereas the reviews that actually ARE highly scientific and highly objective, disagree with yours.

I have shot extensively with the 7D, 5D2, 5D3, 1D4, and 1Dx so I have a lot of experience with each. There are members on this forum who have a lot more than me. The 1Dx kicks the living crap out of the 7D with regards to high ISO performance, as does the 5D3 and 1D4. I cringe when I have to set the 7D over ISO 800 but don't even notice I needed ISO 5000 or 6400 with the 5D3 or 1Dx. Like Neuro said, physics is scary.


----------



## FEBS (Jun 17, 2014)

tayassu said:


> I recently got the chance to test a 5DIII against my 7D; I tested sharpness, DR and noise in a highly unscientific way, shot a tree against the sun for DR and found only a slight advantage held by the 5D, sharpness got me about the same results (everything after an equal amount of processing in LR). What did really impress me was the high ISO performance of my old 7D. I shot RAW and applied moderate NR in Lightroom to each file of a row from 1600 to 12800. What I found out, was that, surprisingly, the 7D was only 1 stop worse than the 5DIII, so 1600ISO on my 7D look in 100% view like 3200ISO on the 5DIII!!! The gap grew very marginally from 6400ISO on the 7D upwards, but not even a third of a stop!! Of course, with the 7D, there's some crappy background noise at low ISO numbers, but the high ISO performance stunned me. I always assumed like minimum 2 stops difference between those two...
> So I will ask anybody, who got the same bodys: is that the same with your cameras or did I just have insanely infantile dreams about the 5DIII?
> 
> About the specs: It would surprise me if the 7DII featured 'only' a 16 MP sensor, although I would be perfectly fine with that. To fit the majority of potential buyers, they will increase resolution to something like 21-24MP. The noise will most likely be like the 70D as a result of this increase.



That's not my idea about those 2 bodys. The use of my 7D is almost reduced to zero. I'm really hoping they release soon the spec of the 7D2, otherwise I will get a second 5D3. Noise was the real disaster why I bought a 5D3. I even got a much, much better AF with the 5D3. So for me I'm sure, the 7D will be exchanged by a 7D2 or a 5D3. 

For me to, 16mb would be sufficient if I get 1 to 2 stops less noise, with a much better AF (comparable to 5D3), a deep buffer and a high fps of 8 at least. if that would be the spec then 7D2 is welcome, otherwise a 5D3. Case the last one, also a 500 of 200-400 is whished, and that's the reason I wait on the 7D2.

Francois


----------



## tayassu (Jun 17, 2014)

Hm.
Yeah, I thought so.... I will redo the test in a more scientific way and post the results.
Thanks guys for your quick and honest answer.


----------



## jrista (Jun 17, 2014)

FEBS said:


> tayassu said:
> 
> 
> > I recently got the chance to test a 5DIII against my 7D; I tested sharpness, DR and noise in a highly unscientific way, shot a tree against the sun for DR and found only a slight advantage held by the 5D, sharpness got me about the same results (everything after an equal amount of processing in LR). What did really impress me was the high ISO performance of my old 7D. I shot RAW and applied moderate NR in Lightroom to each file of a row from 1600 to 12800. What I found out, was that, surprisingly, the 7D was only 1 stop worse than the 5DIII, so 1600ISO on my 7D look in 100% view like 3200ISO on the 5DIII!!! The gap grew very marginally from 6400ISO on the 7D upwards, but not even a third of a stop!! Of course, with the 7D, there's some crappy background noise at low ISO numbers, but the high ISO performance stunned me. I always assumed like minimum 2 stops difference between those two...
> ...



Whether pixel size improves noise really depends on what your doing. Assuming your maximizing your use of the total sensor area, then pixel size is not actually a critical factor in noise levels. Noise is determined by the TOTAL amount of light gathered. Not per pixel, but entirely. That means sensor area is really the defining factor in noise levels (all else being equal). That is why full-frame sensors will always have better noise performance than crop sensors when your subject fills the frame equally on both.

The only time pixel size comes into play as a noise factor is when your cropping. That usually implies a limit of reach. Pixel size is primarily a detail factor, and smaller pixels mean more detail. When you have to crop, more detail is king, but the smaller pixels usually mean the trade-off for more detail is more noise. (Really, it still isn't actually the pixel size...noise increases when cropping because the total relevant area of the sensor that is actually used for your subject is smaller...so again, area affects noise, not pixel size...smaller pixels simply resolve a higher frequency noise than larger pixels.)

The only thing that is really going to affect the noise performance of any Canon APS-C sensor is quantum efficiency. That is the ratio of incident photons to electron charge released in the photodiode. It's already at 41% in the 7D II...a one stop improvement would require 82% Q.E. That isn't going to happen...not at room temperature. A boost to 56% would improve things a bit, by about a third of a stop. 

There are potential alternatives to using a CFA that might reduce or eliminate the filtering effect, and increase the amount of incident light at the photodiode. That would also help improve total sensitivity. If Canon moved from using a CFA to using some kind of micro color splitter technology, and preserved nearly 100% of the light, then that could produce a one-stop improvement in noise...however that technology is currently patented by Panasonic. Canon hasn't filed any patents over the last few years that indicates they have anything like that in the works. That does not mean they don't...however if they do, it is unlikely the technology would find it's way into the 7D II at this point. Maybe something in the future.


----------



## scottburgess (Jun 17, 2014)

axtstern said:


> So I'm wondering: Dual Digic 5+ or single Digic 6
> So I'm sure: 70D style Video AF
> So I'm sure: GPS and WIFI
> So I'm sure: 5DIII style AF for still
> ...



At this point we have little reason to be sure about anything. The camera may not even be available for purchase until after Christmas. If prototypes are really being tested now, I suspect that software polishing will go on through the end of the year and production will start in January--making bodies available around March-May 2015.

Better hardware is a fact of life. If you wanted a faster computer for your money, you can always wait another year. Better camera, better smart phone, better mp3 player, ... same thing. The reality is that life goes on, and I'd personally rather make a decent choice and get on with living than constantly wring my hands over such trivia. 95% of photography is what the artist brings with her mind, so I actually think it is _less_ worth worrying about my camera gear than my computer hardware. [If you have trouble believing this, go look at what Tony Sweet brings in with his iPhone... he's bringing $h_t better than I am with a _frickin' iPhone_! It's not the bling, it's the bring.]

People keep focusing on what they think they might gain on a 7Dii. But there are things you might lose as well. Top of my mind would be dropping the pop-up flash, which to me seems very reasonable. Whatever we get will be a set of tradeoffs to produce a good value proposition, and that means a feature or two may disappear.


----------



## geonix (Jun 17, 2014)

To me image quality is the biggest problem of canon aps-c cameras today. And although I am rather sceptical about a real improvment on that front, like some other people here, I still hope for it. 
The gap to Nikon D7100 and the Pentax K3 is already huge enough and Canon should come up with a 7D II that can play in the same league with these two cameras, especially concering sharpness, clarity and image noise. 
Maybe they should also adapt this idea of leaving out the low-pass filter? 
Also I never understood why canon's aps-c sensors need to be smaller the aps-c sensors from sony and others. 

But I'm afraid canon will focus on other aspects than image quality because I never heard this to be a real top issue to canon. As if they don't care about the image quality of other brands and rather focus on AF, touch screen, wifi ...

I will wait and see.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 17, 2014)

geonix said:


> To me image quality is the biggest problem of canon aps-c cameras today.



For what purpose (print/view size)? It's not for low light shooting, but even newer crop generations won't catch up to ff.

For everything else, crop in good light is just fine unless you demand highest shutter speeds or very deep dof handheld. Most people will never notice the difference in color fidelity or raw file elasticity in postprocessing up and including iso 400.



geonix said:


> The gap to Nikon D7100 and the Pentax K3 is already huge enough and Canon should come up with a 7D II that can play in the same league with these two cameras, especially concering sharpness, clarity and image noise.



Did you happen to look at the actual iq samples of 70d vs. d7100? The Nikon/Sony advantage on low iso esp. with dynamic range is well known, but on higher iso settings it's a wash from what I see.


----------



## geonix (Jun 18, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Did you happen to look at the actual iq samples of 70d vs. d7100? The Nikon/Sony advantage on low iso esp. with dynamic range is well known, but on higher iso settings it's a wash from what I see.



Hello Marsu

I use a 7D, which is fine to me in good light situations and ISO of 800 or less. According to the tests and samples I have seen from the 70D, it is not really a big improvment in image noise at ISO 800, 1600, 3200 compared to the 7D. Please correct me here if I'm wrong. 
My impression of the D7100 and the K3, based on samples and tests, is that they have a better noise performance of almost one ISO stop and, as you also say, a better dynamic range, compared to the 7D. 

So I would really appreciate it if the 7D II had the same noise performance at ISO 1600 than the 7D has at ISO 800 and a slightly improved dynamic range. I hope that's mot too much asked.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 18, 2014)

geonix said:


> I use a 7D, which is fine to me in good light situations and ISO of 800 or less. According to the tests and samples I have seen from the 70D, it is not really a big improvment in image noise at ISO 800, 1600, 3200 compared to the 7D. Please correct me here if I'm wrong.



I hereby do - what you don't see from the samples is the banding (fixed pattern noise) which is very prominent on the 7d, but has been reduced a lot on newer models. The second thing you don't immediately recognize is the noise "pattern" which has also improved recently - meaning less "subjective" noise in a film-like pattern and much better handling by denoise algorithms.



geonix said:


> My impression of the D7100 and the K3, based on samples and tests, is that they have a better noise performance of almost one ISO stop and, as you also say, a better dynamic range, compared to the 7D.



Well, ok, to the 5 year old 7d ... but in comparison to the current 70d @1600 it rather looks like 1/2 stop to me which is nothing to solely base a decision upon. If you are that light challenged than ff is the way to go anyway unless you're a "birder".


----------



## geonix (Jun 18, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> geonix said:
> 
> 
> > I use a 7D, which is fine to me in good light situations and ISO of 800 or less. According to the tests and samples I have seen from the 70D, it is not really a big improvment in image noise at ISO 800, 1600, 3200 compared to the 7D. Please correct me here if I'm wrong.
> ...



Yes I am a birder. Well, I like to take all kinds of wildlife shots and as wildlife ist often so shy I often end up cropping images. Thats why I haven't considered ff seriously yet (and of course because of the price). But when I eventually get a 150-600mm lens I might put that on a 5D II or III. 
Back to the 7D II IQ: If the "fixed pattern noise" and noise "pattern" have improved on the 70D they will hopefully improve further on the 7D II. 
And the absence of the low-pass filter really seems to improve sharpness so Canon should have a look at that idea too.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 18, 2014)

geonix said:


> Back to the 7D II IQ: If the "fixed pattern noise" and noise "pattern" have improved on the 70D they will hopefully improve further on the 7D II.



Afaik it has been improved with the 60d, the problem with the 7d is the fast dual-channel dual-digic readout which amplifies Canon's read noise problem... so we'll see about the 7d2 if that's also dual-channel to get high fps. But Canon is certainly aware of the problem as seen on the very good iq 6d.



geonix said:


> And the absence of the low-pass filter really seems to improve sharpness so Canon should have a look at that idea too.



Look at the d800 vs d800e reviews (and a lot of threads around here) - it's certainly nice for still photogs to have a weaker filter, but it might introduce moire and the effect is only visible if you look very closely @100% crop... it's debatable if this is "worth it". Doesn't replace a better lens in any case


----------



## tayassu (Jun 18, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> tayassu said:
> 
> 
> > I recently got the chance to test a 5DIII against my 7D; I tested sharpness, DR and noise in a highly unscientific way, shot a tree against the sun for DR and found only a slight advantage held by the 5D, sharpness got me about the same results (everything after an equal amount of processing in LR). What did really impress me was the high ISO performance of my old 7D. I shot RAW and applied moderate NR in Lightroom to each file of a row from 1600 to 12800. What I found out, was that, surprisingly, the 7D was only 1 stop worse than the 5DIII, so 1600ISO on my 7D look in 100% view like 3200ISO on the 5DIII!!! The gap grew very marginally from 6400ISO on the 7D upwards, but not even a third of a stop!! Of course, with the 7D, there's some crappy background noise at low ISO numbers, but the high ISO performance stunned me. I always assumed like minimum 2 stops difference between those two...
> ...



So I redid the test today:
I set the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II on my tripod (Manfrotto 055CXPRO4 + Manfrotto MA410) and shot the 7D @ 85mm and the 5DIII @ 135mm. Both cameras were set to f/2.8, AWB, Neutral Picture Style, in-camera noise reduction low; the lens was focussed manually in LiveView, IS was turned off and I shot with the remote (Canon RC-6). Then I shot an ISO row from 1600 to 12800 on the 7D and from 1600 to 102400 on the 5DIII. I shot, of course, in RAW, as I'm not interested in JPEG. In post, I did apply NR in Lightroom 5 by an amount of 50 to every single picture. Then I compared them in the 100% view. (Is that scientific enough?)
To my eyes, the results look like this:
12800ISO on the 7D = something between 25600 and 51200ISO on the 5DIII
6400ISO on the 7D = 16000ISO on the 5DIII
3200ISO on the 7D = 10000ISO on the 5DIII
1600ISO on the 7D = 4000ISO on the 5DIII
That makes an 1,3 stop advantage for the 5DIII, for me, that is totally ok considering the price and the age of the 7D.
I'm looking forward to hear your answers!!


----------



## tayassu (Jun 18, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Look at the d800 vs d800e reviews (and a lot of threads around here) - it's certainly nice for still photogs to have a weaker filter, but it might introduce moire and the effect is only visible if you look very closely @100% crop... it's debatable if this is "worth it". Doesn't replace a better lens in any case



From every review I've read/watched about cameras without AA filter, I have never heard anything about moire problems... in fact, the 70D has even more moire than the D7100 (look at MichaelTheMaven's YouTube review). I' very eager to learn new things, so could you please show me one or two of those reviews?


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 22, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> geonix said:
> 
> 
> > Back to the 7D II IQ: If the "fixed pattern noise" and noise "pattern" have improved on the 70D they will hopefully improve further on the 7D II.
> ...



Yeah, despite the 6D's whopping four-channel readout, I haven't noticed any significant fixed-pattern noise until I get up into extended ISO territory (ISO 51,200 and up). They've definitely gotten better at balancing their ADCs and amplifier stages. Either that or they're doing more thorough factory calibration to compensate for it. Or both. Either way....


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 22, 2014)

tayassu said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > tayassu said:
> ...



Did you do your test shots in low light or daylight at high speed?
You mind sharing some of 7D photos at high ISO?


----------



## tayassu (Jun 22, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> tayassu said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



I did the test inside in the afternoon. I think, at ISO 102400 I shot at 1/6400th of a second, but that makes 1/100th for ISO 1600, which is very realistic. I'll try to load them up this afternoon.


----------



## tayassu (Jun 22, 2014)

Update: At 102400 I was at 1/1600th. 
I just noticed when looking through the pictures again, the light changed during shooting... Oh man... I have the same shutter Speed at 1600ISO 7D and 4000ISO 5DIII. So I'll redo it again in a more controlled situation.


----------



## tayassu (Jun 22, 2014)

I'm sorry, guys... I'll tell you about the new results with samples


----------



## tayassu (Jun 22, 2014)

Ok, did it again. Same conditions as before, only it was controlled light and I changed the WB in post by an amount of -526K. Then I did 100% crops, which I will load up. Results are:
12800ISO on the 7D only marginally worse than 25600ISO on the 5DIII, so a 1,3 stop difference maybe
6400ISO on the 7D = something between 16000-20000ISO on the 5DIII, so a 1,5 stop difference
3200ISO on the 7D = something between 8000-10000ISO on the 5DIII, so a 1,5 stop difference
1600ISO on the 7D = something between 3200-4000ISO on the 5DIII, so a 1,2 stop difference.
Samples come in the next post.


----------



## tayassu (Jun 22, 2014)

So 25600-5DIII and 12800-7D


----------



## tayassu (Jun 22, 2014)

16000 and 20000 on 5DIII and 6400 on 7D


----------



## tayassu (Jun 22, 2014)

8000 and 10000 on 5DIII and 3200 on 7D


----------



## tayassu (Jun 22, 2014)

And last but not least: 3200 and 4000 on 5DIII plus 1600 on 7D


----------



## tayassu (Jun 22, 2014)

That makes a 1,2-1,5 stop difference and that is great, considering age and sensor differences. I'm totally happy with the HighISO performance of my 7D.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 22, 2014)

tayassu said:


> That makes a 1,2-1,5 stop difference and that is great, considering age and sensor differences. I'm totally happy with the HighISO performance of my 7D.



Thanks for sharing. Try this test again in low light(evening time), results might be diff.


----------



## tayassu (Jun 22, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> tayassu said:
> 
> 
> > That makes a 1,2-1,5 stop difference and that is great, considering age and sensor differences. I'm totally happy with the HighISO performance of my 7D.
> ...



No, you understood me wrong, the first and second test were in daylight, the third in low-light. I know the the results get different in different light conditions, so I did it in low-light. The shutter speed was always around 1/100th of the ISO number, so I had 1/50th with ISO5000


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 22, 2014)

tayassu said:


> That makes a 1,2-1,5 stop difference and that is great, considering age and sensor differences. I'm totally happy with the HighISO performance of my 7D.



Try the high iso series on a test subject with some dynamic range in it, your shadows will be horrible.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 22, 2014)

tayassu said:


> That makes a 1,2-1,5 stop difference and that is great, considering age and sensor differences. I'm totally happy with the HighISO performance of my 7D.


I agree that 7D is good for a APS-C camera in 2009. Now hopefully 7D mark ii do better than its competitors in 2014.


----------



## tayassu (Jun 22, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> tayassu said:
> 
> 
> > That makes a 1,2-1,5 stop difference and that is great, considering age and sensor differences. I'm totally happy with the HighISO performance of my 7D.
> ...


+1


----------



## tayassu (Jun 22, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> tayassu said:
> 
> 
> > That makes a 1,2-1,5 stop difference and that is great, considering age and sensor differences. I'm totally happy with the HighISO performance of my 7D.
> ...



I know it is not perfect, although I don't find the shadows to be too bad, I just wanted to help its lousy high ISO reputation a bit. Btw, for the shadows I have the correction tool (I think it's called brush in english)


----------

