# 7D mark 2 crop vs full frame



## flyingSquirrel (Jun 21, 2014)

I'm curious if you'd prefer the 7D mark 2 to have a crop sensor (aps-c or aps-h) or a full frame sensor. Many have stated they would be delighted if it were full frame, and others would be highly disappointed if it were anything but a crop sensor. I realize that some other factors may have an effect on your answer (possibly the MP count) but in general I think you'll have a preference, regardless of those factors.


----------



## Menace (Jun 21, 2014)

It will not be a mark 2 of the original 7D if it wasn't an APS-C sensor.


----------



## Eldar (Jun 21, 2014)

An APS-C sensor, around 24 MP, with improved high ISO performance and (I´m almost afraid to say it) improved DR would make an interesting start. If it came in a house with as close to pro body sealing as possible, improved fps and, most importantly to me, an AF system like we have in the 5DIII/1DX, it would make a Very interesting camera. The ultimate bonus would be if it (on top of the above) also could AF at f/8.0 (AF at 1920mm!!)

Personally I am waiting for it with anticipation, to complement my 1DX for birds and wildlife. If it comes with the above, it would, combined with the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x or the 300 f2.8L IS II (which I then would get) & extenders, make a very potent and convenient package for longer hikes and also when you need the extra reach and getting more pixels on the subject and improved focusing ability.


----------



## Skulker (Jun 21, 2014)

I think it will be a crop sensor.

but if it is i don't think i will be getting one. I don't like the idea of carrying all that L glass around and then chucking away the light it gathers. To me that's silly. And the F'F's crop so well.

and hats of to the man above who is planning long hikes with his 200-400.


----------



## Eldar (Jun 21, 2014)

Skulker said:


> and hats of to the man above who is planning long hikes with his 200-400.


The 200-400 is heavy, but the alternative is a 1DX with the 600, extenders and an additional lens or two to cover the shorter focal lengths. So all in all, a 7DII with the 200-400 is quite compact (everything is relative) and not that heavy. A 7DII with the 300/2.8 II, with the extenders is more appealing carrying option though


----------



## 2n10 (Jun 21, 2014)

Menace said:


> It will not be a mark 2 of the original 7D if it wasn't an APS-C sensor.



This, it will be an APS-C sensor. I am looking forward to see what the new technology will be along with the specs.


----------



## andrewfusekpeters (Jun 21, 2014)

yes, it's an interesting comparison, but having now got the 1dx and shooting regularly handheld with 500F4 and the 1.4x extender {and even the 2x}, and then swapping back the 7d sometimes, I can see why pro shooters use the 1dx - focusing, noise, all of it trounces 7d. Was shooting flycatcher fledgelings in the nest at dusk, at 10,000 iso and with a little NR in lightroom you could not tell - also gives me plenty of reach. Yes, would love a 7d2 with awesome noise abilities and the focusing of the 1dx - let' see what canon does. Have also played with a pentax K3 which, if the lenses were available, would be a good contender...


----------



## pwp (Jun 21, 2014)

You could say we already have a full frame 7DII in the shape of the 5DIII. A FF 7DII is just not going to happen. Nor is an APS-H...it's a guaranteed APS-C. 

As the owner of a now very heavily used 1D MkIV, I voted APS-H, but the reality is that we're unlikely to see this format again from Canon. 

-pw


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2014)

Prefer? Doesn't matter. A 7D Mark II will be APS-C, or it wouldn't be called a 7D Mark II.


----------



## bardamu (Jun 21, 2014)

It should have a crop factor of 1.5, to match Nikon, etc.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 21, 2014)

it will be APS-C
but i selected APS-H since i wish it would be and it annoys alot of people


----------



## Click (Jun 21, 2014)

Menace said:


> It will not be a mark 2 of the original 7D if it wasn't an APS-C sensor.



+1


----------



## 2n10 (Jun 21, 2014)

bardamu said:


> It should have a crop factor of 1.5, to match Nikon, etc.



Why should it match Nikon?


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 21, 2014)

Menace said:


> It will not be a mark 2 of the original 7D if it wasn't an APS-C sensor.



+1


----------



## garyknrd (Jun 21, 2014)

Eldar said:


> An APS-C sensor, around 24 MP, with improved high ISO performance and (I´m almost afraid to say it) improved DR would make an interesting start. If it came in a house with as close to pro body sealing as possible, improved fps and, most importantly to me, an AF system like we have in the 5DIII/1DX, it would make a Very interesting camera. The ultimate bonus would be if it (on top of the above) also could AF at f/8.0 (AF at 1920mm!!)



+1


----------



## flyingSquirrel (Jun 21, 2014)

Skulker said:


> I think it will be a crop sensor. but if it is i don't think i will be getting one.* I don't like the idea of carrying all that L glass around and then chucking away the light it gathers. *To me that's silly. And the F'F's crop so well.



I'm not sure I understand what you are saying (in bold). Could you please explain / elaborate a little? Thanks


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 21, 2014)

Just how would a FF '7D' fit into the current 6D/5D/1D line up ? As has been pointed out it would hardly be a 7D anyway. The crop bodies offer faster, lighter, greater dof - all of this _cheaper_ than the equivalent FF.

Why would it want to be FF ? 

( Note: those wanting a 1Dx re-badged as 7DII at 7D prices need not reply . )


----------



## Skulker (Jun 21, 2014)

flyingSquirrel said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > I think it will be a crop sensor. but if it is i don't think i will be getting one.* I don't like the idea of carrying all that L glass around and then chucking away the light it gathers. *To me that's silly. And the F'F's crop so well.
> ...



Just one of my pet niggles. ;D The crop sensors only record a cropped part of the image produced by a FF lens. A lens designed for a crop frame camera would be much lighter and cheaper to manufacture (and hopefully to buy) than lenses that are designed for FF. Its not going to happen but I wish Canon would produce a good range of L quality lenses to get the best from crop cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2014)

Skulker said:


> flyingSquirrel said:
> 
> 
> > Skulker said:
> ...



Just so long as you understand that particular niggle does not apply universally to all lens designs. In particular, the largest and heaviest lenses would gain little to no benefit from a smaller image circle.


----------



## DominoDude (Jun 22, 2014)

Eldar said:


> An APS-C sensor, around 24 MP, with improved high ISO performance and (I´m almost afraid to say it) improved DR would make an interesting start. If it came in a house with as close to pro body sealing as possible, improved fps and, most importantly to me, an AF system like we have in the 5DIII/1DX, it would make a Very interesting camera. The ultimate bonus would be if it (on top of the above) also could AF at f/8.0 (AF at 1920mm!!)
> 
> ...



+1 and +drool


----------



## flyingSquirrel (Jun 22, 2014)

I posted this in another 7D mk II thread but wanted to mention it here as well. I have decided that I would be willing to bet money (if I had any money) that this camera will have 30+ MP, and that, in Q1 of 2015, a camera will be released from Canon which will have 40-50 MP. Call me crazy.


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 22, 2014)

flyingSquirrel said:


> I posted this in another 7D mk II thread but wanted to mention it here as well. I have decided that I would be willing to bet money (if I had any money) that this camera will have 30+ MP, and that, in Q1 of 2015, a camera will be released from Canon which will have 40-50 MP. Call me crazy.



You're crazy.



Sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## Big Tex (Jun 22, 2014)

It depends on what you shoot. I shoot a lot of HS sports, and love using my 70-200 2.8. With the crop it gives me beyond 300MM in reach. I am much more mobile than the guys I see using full-framers and the big 300 & 400MM lenses. I can move all over the field and get down all the way to the turf if I want. 

Can't wait for the new 7D Mark ii. Am hoping to get great noise improvement at 6400 ISO.


----------



## flyingSquirrel (Jun 22, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> flyingSquirrel said:
> 
> 
> > I posted this in another 7D mk II thread but wanted to mention it here as well. I have decided that I would be willing to bet money (if I had any money) that this camera will have 30+ MP, and that, in Q1 of 2015, a camera will be released from Canon which will have 40-50 MP. Call me crazy.
> ...



Hehe, no problem, I fully expected someone to take that one. Besides, I like it when people say I'm crazy. It lets me know I'm doing something right


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 23, 2014)

flyingSquirrel said:


> I posted this in another 7D mk II thread but wanted to mention it here as well. I have decided that I would be willing to bet money (if I had any money) that this camera will have 30+ MP, and that, in Q1 of 2015, a camera will be released from Canon which will have 40-50 MP. Call me crazy.


 
It might go 23-24mp, anything higher in a APS-C would cause big technical issues trying to achieve a 10 fps speed. The amount of data to process is too much. 

Since it will have likely have dual pixel technology, you could claim that its 50mp, but the dual pixel output is combined before saving to a memory card. There is a possibility that those dual pixels will do more than autofocus, like improving DR, but the specs will be in the low 20 mp range.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 23, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> flyingSquirrel said:
> 
> 
> > I posted this in another 7D mk II thread but wanted to mention it here as well. I have decided that I would be willing to bet money (if I had any money) that this camera will have 30+ MP, and that, in Q1 of 2015, a camera will be released from Canon which will have 40-50 MP. Call me crazy.
> ...


I'd argue with you about the amount of data to process being too much....

Look at the 60D... it has a DIGIC4 and saves to SD cards. We now have DIGIC6 which has 20 times the processing power.... When the 60D came out with it's SDHC cards the maximum transfer speed was 25Mbytes per second and now we have SDXC-UHS2 cards which support up to 2Tbytes of storage and up to 312Mbytes per second storage.. this improvement in technology is easily enough to double the frame rate plus double the pixel count of a 60D so handling a 36Mpixel sensor at 10 frames per second is not a hard task.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 23, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > flyingSquirrel said:
> ...


 
Don,
My comment had to do with the internal readout of the sensor and the processor. That's why the 7D and 1D series use dual processors, to get the data flow that's needed. A 50MP raw image before it is compressed by the processor will be well over 200MB. Jpeg images are very highly compressed, but the processor must work very hard to compress a 200MB+ image to jpeg size. After that, write speeds are not the issue.

SDXC UHS cards are still limited to slow write speeds after their first use and a normal in camera format like most users do. Some are misled by reading specifications, they are for new cards only, or for those that have undergone the slow process of erasing. Just doing a regular format in camera does not erase a card, so a SD card must erase a whole block of used sectors before they can be written to. That's why they say "up to" in the spec.

Hopefully, a 7D MK II would have dual CF slots, which will not be a write speed limitation.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 23, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


I think that if they wanted to, that they could read out a large pixel count sensor more than 10 times per second.... and yes, dual DIGICs really helps a lot. After all, I have a 60Ghz spectrum analyzer sitting on the bench next to my desk.... you can design some insanely fast electronics if you really want to.

Although most of us think in terms of bytes, I/O knows no such bounds. Reading a sensor is a massively parallel operation and instead of reading one byte or word at a time, they can be designed to be read hundreds of bits at a time, and even rows at a time into an internal buffer on the sensor. ultimately it comes down to design decisions and architecture. 

However we slice it, even with dual cFast cards, the real bottleneck is going to be dumping it to storage. A good buffer can help a lot there, but ultimately, the buffer fills and things slow down.


----------



## AprilForever (Jun 25, 2014)

So many reasons it needs to be a crop sensor...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 25, 2014)

I think we ALL know deep down that it is NOT going to be either FF or APS-H.


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 26, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> flyingSquirrel said:
> 
> 
> > I posted this in another 7D mk II thread but wanted to mention it here as well. I have decided that I would be willing to bet money (if I had any money) that this camera will have 30+ MP, and that, in Q1 of 2015, a camera will be released from Canon which will have 40-50 MP. Call me crazy.
> ...



Only because Canon's custom silicon is abysmally slow. If the specs from Magic Lantern are correct (and if I read the spec sheets correctly), then the top-of-the-line, current-generation 64-bit ARM chips are at least 200x as fast as the DIGIC 5, and maybe an order of magnitude more than that. (I don't know which version of the CPU they based their chip on.) All their custom DSP hardware is just working around the CPU itself being a total dog.

The FPS of DSLRs is not primarily limited by the CPU. It is primarily limited by the speed of the mechanical shutter and secondarily by the size of the buffer and the speed at which the flash parts can write the data usefully. The CPU speed is almost certainly chosen to be just fast enough to handle the needed throughput.




Mt Spokane Photography said:


> My comment had to do with the internal readout of the sensor and the processor. That's why the 7D and 1D series use dual processors, to get the data flow that's needed.



I suspect they use dual processors because it's cheaper to add more existing, slower parts than it is to design newer, faster ones. 




Mt Spokane Photography said:


> A 50MP raw image before it is compressed by the processor will be well over 200MB. Jpeg images are very highly compressed, but the processor must work very hard to compress a 200MB+ image to jpeg size. After that, write speeds are not the issue.



The big headache with data that big is actually the power consumption of the RAM needed to store it. JPEG processing is borderline trivial, CPU-wise, and is almost infinitely parallelizable. You could throw a separate CPU core at each DCT block if you were so inclined, or even even parallelize the DCT itself (though I don't remember precisely how you do the latter without duplicating parts of the computation). Even if you're doing scaling to obtain a lower quality resolution, it's still trivially parallelizable. Just throw a decent 64-bit, 4-core ARM CPU at the problem, and you're likely in the ballpark.

But write speeds are going to be a big part of the problem. Lots of people shoot RAW, and a 200 MB file size represents nearly a factor of ten increase. And JPEG, assuming the quality setting remains the same, and assuming you're shooting at full resolution, is likely to also increase in size roughly proportional to the number of pixels, so that's going to balloon by close to a factor of ten as well.


----------



## jrista (Jun 26, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > flyingSquirrel said:
> ...



Your comparing general-purpose processors to special-purpose DSPs designed to handle, in hardware, the specific processing needs to a specific camera, or small set of cameras. The two, a general-purpose ARM and a DIGIC DSP, are NOT directly comparable. The clock rate of a DIGIC may be "abysmally slow", however it's IPC is extremely high compared to the ARM. The ARM may have a ridiculously high clock rate, but it's IPC is very low. Canon's DSP's aren't any slower really than the competitions. DIGIC 5/5+ is already a bit older now, DIGIC 6 is really what should be compared to the competition. In that respect, DIGIC 6 is on par with Sony BIONZ X (the DSP used in their A7s), as they both do similar processing, all in hardware (although Canon's is currently only used for some of their compact cameras.) 

Regarding memory, I wouldn't say that it's just the memory that consumes power...because the IPC of the DIGIC chips is high, they ARE doing a LOT of work, regardless of the clock rate. Despite that, the primary power consumer is unlikely to be either the memory nor the DSP. Moving physical components requires more power...flapping a mirror @ 12fps, moving large focus groups in lenses, those are going to consume more power. If your shooting action, those things are going to consume a lot more power. With tiny transistors these days, its easy to build low-power electronics...but the force required to move a physical object will always be the same.

I don't think "throwing an ARM at the problem" is a solution. The IPC of an arm is low, they are GENERAL purpose processors, so they will require far more cycles to perform the kind of image processing necessary to handle the information coming off the sensor. A specially-designed DSP that has the necessary logic built into the hardware will perform image processing a lot faster for less power, as it's a SPECIAL purpose device. That's why we have GPUs in our computers...they are specially designed to tackle the problem of pixel processing in a more efficient manner than a CPU ever could.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 26, 2014)

Menace said:


> It will not be a mark 2 of the original 7D if it wasn't an APS-C sensor.



True.

I personally don't care much about APS-C DSLR's anymore. When I get the chance I will get a full frame mirrorless too (at a budget price), but then, full frame is compatible with my type of photography.

Of course for the birders and such I wish the 7D2 will have an excellent aps-c sensor


----------



## TexPhoto (Jun 26, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Menace said:
> 
> 
> > It will not be a mark 2 of the original 7D if it wasn't an APS-C sensor.
> ...



If you shoot a variety of images, or even just a variety in one nitch, an APS-C camera is a nice compliment to a FF camera. Shooting sports I will often use a fisheye and my 400 with extenders in the same shoot. The difference in the look and reach of the 2 cameras can be nice. The 5DII + 7D combo because very popular for this reason.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 26, 2014)

TexPhoto said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Menace said:
> ...



I worked with that combination for a long time, but the image quality of the 7D was disappointing compared to the 5D MkII so in the end that's what caused me to sell the 7D in favor of a 5D MkIII. The Mk II and Mk III work much better together; but I prioritize the MkIII for low light and sports, obviously. 

Last weekend I did a motorsports shoot with the 70-200 on the MkIII and my 35mm Sigma on the Mk II. The results were staggeringly good, and the bodies and lenses a seamless match, with matching sharpness and colors.


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> Your comparing general-purpose processors to special-purpose DSPs designed to handle, in hardware, the specific processing needs to a specific camera, or small set of cameras. The two, a general-purpose ARM and a DIGIC DSP, are NOT directly comparable. The clock rate of a DIGIC may be "abysmally slow", however it's IPC is extremely high compared to the ARM.



I'm area of the difference between normal CPUs and dedicated DSPs. I'm also aware that modern 64-bit ARM CPUs have vector engines and graphic chips that are fast enough to almost certainly make that DSP hardware completely unnecessary. The reason you use DSPs is because the CPUs can't handle the processing. The CPU in an iPhone 5S is faster than a single-processor 2 GHz G5 Mac from just a few years ago. And Canon RAW image rendering seems to be pretty close to instant on an iPhone 5 using just the CPU, as far as I can tell from my Safari experiments, so I would expect that a CPU comparable to the one in the 5S ought to be able to handle a DSLR's image processing without breaking a sweat. Granted, converting to JPEG takes extra work, but not *that* much extra work.

You should be able to get by with a small amount of dedicated hardware to control the ADC sweep across the CMOS part and shove the data into a small chunk of dual-port RAM so the CPU can then copy it into normal RAM using NEON instructions. Mind you, I could be wrong—I'd have to actually write the code before I could say with absolute certainty—but I'm pretty sure we're either past the point where those DSPs are unnecessary or at least rapidly approaching it.

BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by "IPC". To me, that means interprocessor communication, which isn't relevant here. Do you mean IOPS?





jrista said:


> Regarding memory, I wouldn't say that it's just the memory that consumes power...because the IPC of the DIGIC chips is high, they ARE doing a LOT of work, regardless of the clock rate. Despite that, the primary power consumer is unlikely to be either the memory nor the DSP. Moving physical components requires more power...flapping a mirror @ 12fps, moving large focus groups in lenses, those are going to consume more power. If your shooting action, those things are going to consume a lot more power. With tiny transistors these days, its easy to build low-power electronics...but the force required to move a physical object will always be the same.



35mm cameras used to run for months on a tiny button cell. So I'd expect that, compared with the CPUs, LCD panels, RAM, the mechanical bits should pretty much be lost in the noise, power-wise (though that may not be true with mirror lock-up—not sure). Then again, people took fewer shots in those days, so maybe that's not a fair comparison.




jrista said:


> I don't think "throwing an ARM at the problem" is a solution. The IPC of an arm is low, they are GENERAL purpose processors, so they will require far more cycles to perform the kind of image processing necessary to handle the information coming off the sensor. A specially-designed DSP that has the necessary logic built into the hardware will perform image processing a lot faster for less power, as it's a SPECIAL purpose device. That's why we have GPUs in our computers...they are specially designed to tackle the problem of pixel processing in a more efficient manner than a CPU ever could.



It doesn't really matter how many cycles the processing takes. What matters is the clock time and, to a lesser extent, the power consumption. If the general-purpose CPUs can handle the processing in the required time, it makes a lot more sense to use those rather than custom DSP hardware, because in the downtime between photos, you can repurpose that extra CPU power for other useful tasks, unlike DSP hardware, which is pretty much a one-trick pony.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 27, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Your comparing general-purpose processors to special-purpose DSPs designed to handle, in hardware, the specific processing needs to a specific camera, or small set of cameras. The two, a general-purpose ARM and a DIGIC DSP, are NOT directly comparable. The clock rate of a DIGIC may be "abysmally slow", however it's IPC is extremely high compared to the ARM.
> ...



Gentlemen, perhaps the solution is not A or B, but A and B....


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 27, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Gentlemen, perhaps the solution is not A or B, but A and B....



True. And after thinking about it further, I've concluded that they probably will still need some DSP hardware for video scaling and compression, if only for power consumption and heat reasons.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 27, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Gentlemen, perhaps the solution is not A or B, but A and B....
> ...


Some things are easier to do in hardware and some are easier to do in software. Almost all of the test equipment I use is a hybrid of the two, and some of it runs at insane speeds like satellite modems with 50Mhz wide bandwidth and spectrum analyzers that can run at 60Ghz... It makes sense to do some of the work in hardware if it means reducing heat and thereby improving battery life and noise....


----------



## jrista (Jun 27, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Your comparing general-purpose processors to special-purpose DSPs designed to handle, in hardware, the specific processing needs to a specific camera, or small set of cameras. The two, a general-purpose ARM and a DIGIC DSP, are NOT directly comparable. The clock rate of a DIGIC may be "abysmally slow", however it's IPC is extremely high compared to the ARM.
> ...



IPC = Instructions Per Clock. It's a well-known term when describing how much work any kind of processor does in one clock cycle. Longer, more complex pipelines (such as in a purpose-built DSP) usually have much higher IPC. So, while they often have a lower clock rate, they do just as much if not more work than a general purpose device. 

I don't think we'll see DSPs disappear from DSLRs any time soon. Purpose-built processors allow manufacturers to very finely and precisely tune the processor to the capabilities of the camera, optimize power usage, etc. If anyone was going to jump the DSP ship first, it would have been Sony, however instead, they built the Bionz X DSP for the A7s, and it is pretty kick-ass. 



dgatwood said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding memory, I wouldn't say that it's just the memory that consumes power...because the IPC of the DIGIC chips is high, they ARE doing a LOT of work, regardless of the clock rate. Despite that, the primary power consumer is unlikely to be either the memory nor the DSP. Moving physical components requires more power...flapping a mirror @ 12fps, moving large focus groups in lenses, those are going to consume more power. If your shooting action, those things are going to consume a lot more power. With tiny transistors these days, its easy to build low-power electronics...but the force required to move a physical object will always be the same.
> ...



I don't think any film SLR cameras were ever cranking out 12fps, nor moving the lens focus group of the great whites like the 300mm through 600mm lenses that frequently. The 1D X requires a higher voltage to supply the necessary power to the lens to support fast AF. Moving the mirror that fast, reliably and accurately on a consistent basis takes the right kind of power/signal. 

I also don't think that a large pro-grade film SLR was running off of a button battery. IIRC, Canon has a specific NiMH battery used in the 1V and EOS 3 cameras...last I saw, it looked pretty similar to the 1D X batteries in terms of shape and size.



dgatwood said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think "throwing an ARM at the problem" is a solution. The IPC of an arm is low, they are GENERAL purpose processors, so they will require far more cycles to perform the kind of image processing necessary to handle the information coming off the sensor. A specially-designed DSP that has the necessary logic built into the hardware will perform image processing a lot faster for less power, as it's a SPECIAL purpose device. That's why we have GPUs in our computers...they are specially designed to tackle the problem of pixel processing in a more efficient manner than a CPU ever could.
> ...



What matters is how much work is done in any given unit time. That's what affects power consumption. That's where IPC comes into play. A high IPC/low clock part can do the same amount or more work (same amount of power consumption) as a low IPC/high clock part.

As for repurposing extra processing power for other "useful tasks"...what useful tasks? Were talking about cameras here, not smartphones. I am happy that my immensely capable smartphone has a camera, but it's also basically a general purpose pocket PC. It's a small, mobile computer. My DSLR is just a camera...it only really has one specific task. I'm not going to be doing image editing on it's microscopic 3.2" screen, I'm not going to be dialing up my buddies or playing games or listening to music out in the field. I bought a DSLR so I would have a very powerful, very capable camera with a high frame rate, highly accurate focus, and the ability to use a wide variety of lenses. That's it's purpose. It's a SPECIAL purpose. I don't know what I'd use a whole lot of extra processing horsepower for in a camera... I use my Lumia for any general purpose tasks, as it is far better suited to it.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> As for repurposing extra processing power for other "useful tasks"...what useful tasks?


running the menu system...
controlling the wifi link
interfacing the buttons/knobs/dials
communicating with the lens
all those program modes
controlling the flash
etc etc etc


----------



## jrista (Jun 27, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > As for repurposing extra processing power for other "useful tasks"...what useful tasks?
> ...



I honestly don't think those things consume a lot of horsepower. I don't think I've ever experienced any lag or other issues that might possibly be related to not having enough spare processing power in the DIGIC chip or chips to handle it in the past. The only time my flash ever lags is when it's recharging, which has nothing to do with how fast the processor is, and everything to do with how fast the batteries can supply power. I don't think anything related to the performance or experience of using a menu system or controlling flash or anything like that is enough to warrant moving entirely to a general purpose processor like ARM to control the entire camera in lieu of a DSP. I know Nikon has an Android Camera...in that case, a general purpose processor would be extremely useful, however I believe Nikon embedded an ARM within their EXPEED processor, and still use EXPEED for all the image processing stuff. I think that speaks to the power of these dedicated processors.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 27, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> I think we ALL know deep down that it is NOT going to be either FF or APS-H.



Right. Plus, no matter what features it has, at least 50% of posts reacting to its release will complain that it doesn't have some feature that can be found on an entry-level Nikon but which hardly anyone cares about and makes no discernible difference to 99% of photos taken with it....


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


agreed! I doubt that it would add up to a hundredth of what is needed to make that jpg that pops up on the display after you shoot a picture...


----------



## AprilForever (Jun 27, 2014)

I don't get why internet experts think that the 7D mk II needs to be FF. It is preposterous, as FF and crop are two totally different tools, and crop is a better tool for nearly everything. 

The 7D mk II will be a APS-C camera, the FF 7D 2, if you will is called the 1DX.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jun 27, 2014)

A high-end 7D mkII with better IQ and ISO performance will be aimed to replace the 1d MK IV imho. A pro APS-C has a place, especially for wildlife and sports. The only caveat is the performance, it needs to get close to the 1D MK IV to stand a chance. Otherwise it will just re-fill it's current position, which is not a negative!


----------



## TexPhoto (Jun 27, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> TexPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...



Cool. I have always been happy with the colors on my 7D.


IMG_5987 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr


----------



## jrista (Jun 27, 2014)

AprilForever said:


> I don't get why internet experts think that the 7D mk II needs to be FF. It is preposterous, as FF and crop are two totally different tools, *and crop is a better tool for nearly everything*.
> 
> The 7D mk II will be a APS-C camera, the FF 7D 2, if you will is called the 1DX.



Sorry, but I completely disagree with the highlighted bit. Crop and FF both have their place, and there is no way crop is a better tool for "nearly everything". For that matter, it's debatable whether crop is better for even a slim majority of things. FF does better in almost every circumstance. It is larger, so gathers more total light. Usually has bigger pixels. Usually has more pixels. Allows thinner DOF with lenses of any given aperture. Allows for truly ultra wide field of view, much wider than anything available on APS-C (i.e. 8mm fisheye is only a true 180 degrees on FF...on APS-C, that true fisheye view is...cropped!), allows you to get closer with any lens when filling the frame (ideal for portraiture and macro photography, especially macro w/ extension), etc. etc.

The one primary case where crop is better is when you need reach and spatial resolution. Crop "gets you closer" when using longer lenses. That will remain true so long as crop sensors have smaller pixels than FF sensors. Someday, however, it is entirely possible that a larger sensor will come along with pixels just as small as crop, with just as high a frame rate. When that happens, the one true advantage of crop will evaporate, and there will be no reason to use it. The FF image would simply need to be...cropped.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get why internet experts think that the 7D mk II needs to be FF. It is preposterous, as FF and crop are two totally different tools, *and crop is a better tool for nearly everything*.
> ...



Agreed. IMO, the *main* thing at which a crop sensor is better is being in a more affordable camera body.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 27, 2014)

TexPhoto said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > TexPhoto said:
> ...



The 7D is a great camera especially when there is sufficient light. However if you shoot at iso 1600 and up, the image quality really lags behind a full frame camera.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 27, 2014)

AprilForever said:


> I don't get why internet experts think that the 7D mk II needs to be FF. It is preposterous, as FF and crop are two totally different tools, and crop is a better tool for nearly everything.
> 
> The 7D mk II will be a APS-C camera, the FF 7D 2, if you will is called the 1DX.



I agree that any 7D Mark II will be APS-C but to say that crop is better for nearly everything is wrong. It's not better for low-light and it's only good for reach and putting pixels on subject, when you are reach limited.

I hear a lot about how a FF/crop combo is the best for sports such as a 5D3/7D combo. While I agree it's convenient and useful, and ignoring price obviously, it would still be better to have a pair of 1Dx's with sufficient reach lenses. The 1Dx with the longer lens to make up for the 7D's crop factor will produce better IQ, at ALL ISO's. This is exactly why I ditched both of my 7D and 1D4 cameras in favor of a longer lens and another 1Dx. Again though, photography was helping fund a lot of that and had I been on my own, NO WAY I could have afforded that. So I agree with jrista and neuro regarding the cost factor regarding crop cameras. It really was the price difference between a 7D and 1D4 back in 2010 (even though technically the 1D4 is a "crop" camera). 

With that being said, I really hope the 7D replacement is revolutionary and I think it will sell well and make a lot of people happy. I may consider it as a "3rd" camera if the specs are right and I have the funding.


----------



## AprilForever (Jun 27, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get why internet experts think that the 7D mk II needs to be FF. It is preposterous, as FF and crop are two totally different tools, and crop is a better tool for nearly everything.
> ...



It's a cost factor, it's a weight factor, it's a mobility factor... These together display the impressive usefulness of APS-C... Hence, why the mirrorless crowd is cheering on their cameras, and saying things like "I'm so glad I ditched my full frame cameras". I've read that in several blogs. Full frame is too heavy. Larger cameras have their place, but it's a dwindling niche, if the camera companies will release full pro quality crop cameras. They have been holding out, because they want to push everyone to upgrade to full frame when they are done with their rebels, it seems.


----------



## garyknrd (Jun 27, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get why internet experts think that the 7D mk II needs to be FF. It is preposterous, as FF and crop are two totally different tools, and crop is a better tool for nearly everything.
> ...



IMO this is exactly what Canon wants people to do. And it has succeeded. With out a good crop sensor camera the upgrade path is pretty well guaranteed with people that can afford it. 

Same with Nikon.

The Nikon 810 FF is getting there. That camera just about does away with the crop sensor argument. I think the next 810 replacement will be the nail in the coffin for crop sensor cameras for Nikon users. 

My problem is I have Canon gear. And I don't have a really good crop camera (except the aging IV). And I will not upgrade to the 600mm prime. Weight is my enemy. So what do I do? It is a real problem for me. The only thing holding me in the Canon camp now is the excellent 500mm glass.. Amazing build quality and sharpness. 

If Nikon updates the 500mm lens. And Canon does not have a good answer to my particular problem and I expect thousands of others? I have a feeling many people will start to switch? I am just hoping Canon does not let this happen.

For birding 500mm is as big as I can go at my age.

I still have the mark IV and it is a great camera. But in a couple of years I will be ready for a new body. And I will look around at my options then and decide my best path.


----------



## NancyP (Jun 27, 2014)

135 film cameras using the little button cells were just powering a TTL meter. The shutter was spring-driven, and the shutter was cocked by advancing the film with the thumb lever. Speaketh the user of a beloved all-manual Mamiya-Sekor DTL 1000. It could be used without the battery. The meter gave out after many years, but all the camera functions worked. 

I wouldn't mind if the 7D2 battery was upgraded to a higher voltage, but I imagine that that would mean more bulk or less capacity. The ability to drive a supertelephoto AF motor faster would be handy. My existing 400mm f/5.6L has very fast AF, but then again, not that much weight of glass is being moved. Different story with f/4 or f/2.8.


----------



## jrista (Jun 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > AprilForever said:
> ...



Aye. There is that too! That is probably the single most important factor for crop...reach would be secondary, although still very important. (Heh, I rarely take cost into account...only time I really have is the 1D X...so I usually don't care about cost.)


----------



## sdsr (Jun 27, 2014)

AprilForever said:


> It's a cost factor, it's a weight factor, it's a mobility factor... These together display the impressive usefulness of APS-C... Hence, why the mirrorless crowd is cheering on their cameras, and saying things like "I'm so glad I ditched my full frame cameras". I've read that in several blogs. Full frame is too heavy. Larger cameras have their place, but it's a dwindling niche, if the camera companies will release full pro quality crop cameras. They have been holding out, because they want to push everyone to upgrade to full frame when they are done with their rebels, it seems.



So, better for everything... except image quality. For smallish, lightish and cheap, APS-C can certainly do a great job if you're not after the ultimate in dslr image quality (during the past year I bought a SL1 for c. $450, the Canon 10-18 for $300 and the Sigma 18-250mm macro for $260; together they don't weigh much and, for the price, the image quality is very impressive - in many circumstances it could be all anyone needs).

But you're not going to gain much, if anything, if you choose the "pro" route, unless manufacturers change their notions of what "pro" lenses can be for APS-C, or unless you consider APS-C lenses to be pro quality already (for many purposes they probably are). Professional quality long zooms and telephoto lenses are all designed for FF, and attaching them to a smaller body doesn't make much difference in weight. At present, if you really want smaller, lighter lenses, M43 is the best solution, though even at their best they may not qualify as "pro" quality (though there are pros that use M43).

On the other hand, FF needn't be big and heavy or even that expensive: depending on what you shoot, Sony A7/A7r/A7s and a few primes (the native ones are light), may be enough. Plus, the A7 costs barely more, if at all, than its top-tier mirrorless m43 and APS-C mirrorless rivals and, I expect, less than the 7DII will cost.

So, who knows?


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



and portability.... I must confess to being tempted by the M for portability.....


----------



## jrista (Jun 27, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I think that would be mirrorless vs. DSLR argument. My 7D is roughly the same size as my 5D III. Slightly thinner, slightly taller. Overall they weigh about the same, feel about the same, work mostly the same, the major differences are the AF system, frame rate, and frame size. I wouldn't say the 7D is more portable than the 5D III, though.


----------



## FEBS (Jun 27, 2014)

I would love to see a 7D mkII with better AF (like 5DmkIII or 1Dx with better battery) and less noise compared the 7D. However, as I'm going to Zimbabwe and Victoria Falls in October, I yesterday pulled the trigger.

My new baby is called 1Dx. A new love for wildlife and sports. I keep the 5Diii as backup and for portrait and landscape.

So, a new 7D mk II is only in planning if it is a real good body with excellent AF and a good noise performance. Only then the extra reach of the crop would drive me to invest in a 7D mk II.


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 27, 2014)

NancyP said:


> 135 film cameras using the little button cells were just powering a TTL meter. The shutter was spring-driven, and the shutter was cocked by advancing the film with the thumb lever. Speaketh the user of a beloved all-manual Mamiya-Sekor DTL 1000. It could be used without the battery. The meter gave out after many years, but all the camera functions worked.



Either way, the mirrorless cameras get about a third the battery life (~150 photos per 6.3 Wh charge) of DSLRs (~1000 photos per 12.96 Wh charge), because the power cost of lighting an LCD panel while shooting completely dwarfs the mechanical cost of flipping the mirror and moving the shutter.

Factor that into your portability equation. If I shot mirrorless, I'd burn through an average of five or six batteries per day while on vacation, versus one on my 6D. That pretty much balances out the weight difference by itself.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 27, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Factor that into your portability equation. If I shot mirrorless, I'd burn through an average of five or six batteries per day while on vacation, versus one on my 6D. That pretty much balances out the weight difference by itself.



That's a good point. I've just returned from a trip (trying) to get a shot of the Giant's Causeway in Ireland. I'd been down the evening before when it was deserted but light was really poor. Went the next day and there were hundreds of people there from many coaches. Seemed to be mostly American and Japanese tourists, everyone taking pictures on either a smartphone or Nikon DSLR. Didn't see a single mirrorless. (Didn't see a single Canon DSLR either ! )

Using a prism and mirror to see through the lens doesn't require any energy does it ? What a clever idea !


----------



## AprilForever (Jun 28, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



The lenses are more portable... Or, could be, if canon would actually make anything beyond 18-xmm zooms... Mirrorless is seriously catching up here...

And as far an 7D lacking IQ, the answer is exposure to the right. With good exposure practices, the 7D performs quite well at 3200... At 6400, things get sketchy, b ut are rescuable with care. Compared to the 5D MK III the 7D will surely look bad, but it is merely showing its age.

And, I love 7D color! I almost never change it, and I always use AWB. I may occassionally tweak shadow color, or selectively saturate a color, but overall, it does great!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 28, 2014)

Speaking from a sports shooter only:

The frustrating thing about the 7D is that Canon said it was for sports shooters and...The 7D pretty much sucks at ISO 800 and higher. I would know because I tried to shoot in the trenches with it for indoor basketball and volleyball for 2 years with a 1D4 as the main camera. The 1D4 kicked it's a$$ but I needed the reach. I guess my standards were high but it was awful. Shooting to the right doesn't always work. If you're at f/2.8, or worse, f/2.2, 1/500s, and still at ISO 3200 or 6400, there's nothing you can do. You can shoot to the right or whatever you call it but the only option is to slow down your shutter speed and now you have blurry athletes. Since I pretty much always shoot indoor sports wide open or close to wide open (depending on lens f/2.2 or f/2.8 ) at 1/500s and EC +2/3EV with CWA or spot metering, this was a real pain with the 7D. It wasn't as bad with a 1D4 and not nearly as good as FF.

When you went to FF, all of the problems were solved. That's what was so great. We could blow up action shots at ISO 6400 for the universities and print them, no problem. The 7D replacement really needs an improved sensor. In the collegiate scene I rarely see any cropped cameras anymore; it's all 1D4 (cropped), 5D3, and 1Dx. In fact, I did all three each of the D1, D2, D3 NCAA Track Meets this year and it was unusual in that most shooters had either a 5D3 or 1Dx. In years past that wasn't true as I saw plenty of 50D's, 7D's, 1D4's. Oddly, not this year.

Mirrorless will really have to improve to appeal to action shooters too. The AF is so erratic and slow it's just well, plain awful. I think the concept has potential though for other things. Just not for me.

Due to all of this, I will be watching the 7D's replacement very anxiously to see how it performs. If it performs decently with a better AF system, I will buy one and use it outdoors, for sure. I still don't think (my opinion) that it's going to match FF though.

On the other hand, I agree with the frustrations FF brings, meaning now you need longer lenses and a more expensive camera. It can be quite cost prohibitive.


----------

