# A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 19, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/12/a-2014-roadmap-part-1-the-7d-mark-ii-is-coming-cr2/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/12/a-2014-roadmap-part-1-the-7d-mark-ii-is-coming-cr2/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>What’s coming in 2014?


</strong>We’ve already been told that 2014 is going to be the “<a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/more-mentions-of-2014-being-the-year-of-the-lens-cr1/" target="_blank">year of the lens</a>” from Canon. Some lenses are getting replaced, while there will be new ones added to the already impressive number of options.</p>
<p>Camera bodies are also going to be front and center. I have received word from a CR3 level source that there will in fact be a 7D Mark II equivalent. The prosumer APS-C camera will live on for at least another generation. The timeframe for an announcement wasn’t given.</p>
<p>More to come once we confirm a few more things.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## DanielW (Dec 19, 2013)

That's great news, especially considering the CR2 tag. Thanks!


----------



## WPJ (Dec 19, 2013)

Thankfully, hopefully labeled 7DmII, I love my 7D

lets see a super high ISO which is workable, 15 frames a sec, lots of good stuff..

canon blow the industry away by giving us a new world class sensor tech which will blow all full frame away. Tuen up that tech in the ff and blow us away again...

hey a guy can wish can't he....


----------



## dstppy (Dec 19, 2013)

Price will be (puts a pinky to the corner of his mouth) one MILLION dollars. muh ha ha ha


----------



## Kiboko (Dec 19, 2013)

First they're going to, then they're not, then they're going to, then they're not, now they are.... will someone please tell Canon to pull their finger out and get on with it, even it's just an official announcement so as to put me out of my misery!


----------



## Marauder (Dec 19, 2013)

Very welcome news!!!


----------



## Ricku (Dec 19, 2013)

So. Year of the lens and year of the camera.

But will it also be year of the sensor?

Canon has not had one of those years since the 5D2. :


----------



## unfocused (Dec 19, 2013)

Kiboko said:


> First they're going to, then they're not, then they're going to, then they're not, now they are.... will someone please tell Canon to pull their finger out and get on with it, even it's just an official announcement so as to put me out of my misery!



Don't blame Canon for rumor trolls that like to stir things up. If Canon has ever said anything official, I'm pretty sure it's been that they intended to offer a 7DII or equivalent.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Dec 19, 2013)

An 'equivalent' huh? 

Well, at least they are coming out with a successor. I only played with one once. I was extremely impressed by it.


----------



## Click (Dec 19, 2013)

Great news


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 19, 2013)

Ahh ha ha ha. It couldn't have been any other way.

Too bad about the 5D4 not having all the capabilities of a pro APS-C and mid range Full Frame all wrapped up in one.

You never know, maybe it'll still come true.


----------



## sb in ak (Dec 19, 2013)

Kiboko said:


> First they're going to, then they're not, then they're going to, then they're not, now they are.... will someone please tell Canon to pull their finger out and get on with it, even it's just an official announcement so as to put me out of my misery!



I don't have any doubt they will release a successor. I think the back and forth has more to do with the naming scheme than anything.


----------



## dstppy (Dec 19, 2013)

Wait, aside from people ranting about DR, what exactly is wrong with the 5Dmk3 that has everyone clamoring for a successor?


----------



## coreyhkh (Dec 19, 2013)

Jumps up and down with joy!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## pj1974 (Dec 19, 2013)

This is good news – hints of ‘great news’ in the future. Another CR2… that I hope will become CR3… and then… reality- a 7DmkII.

My most desired camera item at the moment is a EF Canon 50mm f/1.4 – f/2 USM (IS). As there was a CR2 about that recently, I’m hoping it will come out in 2014. 

And then… this – a replacement for my beloved 7D. (Not that mine is broken, in fact I continue to remain impressed at how capable a camera it is). But a 7DmkII would be my next most desire camera gear to consider (when/if I need a replacement).

Improved IQ (less noise, bit more DR) at any ISO level would be my main request for improvements… mind you, I’m not a pixel peeper, and I’m happy with how my 7D does, it really is a great camera that I’ve loved since I bought it 4 years ago. I’ve taken thousands and thousands of photos with it, and it rarely disappoints. 8)

Other features to be:
- DPAF – perhaps even a noted improvement over the 70D’s revolutionary technology
- spot & partial metering tied to active AF point

Looking forward to what will appear in 2014. In the meantime, I’ll be taking lots of photos with my 7D and existing lenses. 



dstppy said:


> Price will be (puts a pinky to the corner of his mouth) one MILLION dollars. muh ha ha ha



This is a great one-line quote – that caused me a laugh this morning (here in Australia time)! Thanks, dstppy!!! ;D

Best wishes and a great pre-Christmas weekend to all.

Paul


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 19, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> An 'equivalent' huh?



hah, so maybe both rumors are true, no longer a 7DII in name even if an equivalent is now planned all the same


----------



## pedro (Dec 19, 2013)

9VIII said:


> Ahh ha ha ha. It couldn't have been any other way.
> 
> Too bad about the 5D4 not having all the capabilities of a pro APS-C and mid range Full Frame all wrapped up in one.
> 
> You never know, maybe it'll still come true.



Bring it on. But how much would Canon ask?


----------



## WPJ (Dec 19, 2013)

If they don't use 7DmII, they can charge a lot more...


----------



## dufflover (Dec 19, 2013)

Ricku said:


> So. Year of the lens and year of the camera.
> 
> But will it also be year of the sensor?
> 
> Canon has not had one of those years since the 5D2. :



Indeed. What if it ends up being the same sensor (at least in generation/noise/ISO) as the 70D?
As much as I'd love for there to be a 7DII with a new sensor that leap frogs over the Sony/Nikon competition (heck or just equals it, like DR and read noise), I'm starting lean toward something not too different to the 70D, and people will still spend their money on Canon - the last stragglers yet to give up on a 7DII and getting a 5D3 (where they can afford it).
I mean wouldn't any new sensor built on new manufacturing process be in an EOS-1 first?


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 19, 2013)

A CR2 rumour from a CR3 source..... a 7D2 equivalent.... YES!!!!!!!!!

I don't really care what they call it, so long as it is what the rumoured replacement is....

Perhaps they will call it George.... and I will hug it and pet it and squeeze it and pat it.....


----------



## Kiboko (Dec 19, 2013)

dufflover said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > So. Year of the lens and year of the camera.
> ...


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 19, 2013)

dstppy said:


> Wait, aside from people ranting about DR, what exactly is wrong with the 5Dmk3 that has everyone clamoring for a successor?



I'm clamoring for a successor to the 5D3 to be announced, so that the price of the 5D3 will drop. I'd like to pick up a 2nd 5D3 for around $2K, and retire my 5DC.


----------



## mkabi (Dec 19, 2013)

Hey OP, whats part 2 and other parts of the 2014 Roadmap?


----------



## SpartanII (Dec 20, 2013)

For those who will be abandoning your mark i, keep me in mind as a buyer of your camera.


----------



## ewg963 (Dec 20, 2013)

Ricku said:


> So. Year of the lens and year of the camera.
> 
> But will it also be year of the sensor?
> 
> Canon has not had one of those years since the 5D2. :


 +100000000


----------



## unfocused (Dec 20, 2013)

JonAustin said:


> I'm clamoring for a successor to the 5D3 to be announced, so that the price of the 5D3 will drop. I'd like to pick up a 2nd 5D3 for around $2K, and retire my 5DC.



Check back around 2018. The 5DIII might drop to around $2K by then.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Dec 20, 2013)

I'd love for them to bring APS-H back, in a smaller body with 10fps it could be like my old 1D mark III without a grip


----------



## garyknrd (Dec 20, 2013)

At this point! I will believe it when I see it. 
This roller coaster ride has ended for me.


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 20, 2013)

unfocused said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > I'm clamoring for a successor to the 5D3 to be announced, so that the price of the 5D3 will drop. I'd like to pick up a 2nd 5D3 for around $2K, and retire my 5DC.
> ...



Nahh, look at the price history of the 5D2. The 3 will be down to $2K in two years tops.


----------



## Moulyneau (Dec 20, 2013)

dstppy said:


> Wait, aside from people ranting about DR, what exactly is wrong with the 5Dmk3 that has everyone clamoring for a successor?



They probably don't have one ... That said and after some roller-coaster rumors 
about this 7DII or whatever the name, I am pretty happy to see a cr2 for once.


----------



## jrista (Dec 20, 2013)

WPJ said:


> Thankfully, hopefully labeled 7DmII, I love my 7D
> 
> lets see a super high ISO which is workable, 15 frames a sec, lots of good stuff..
> 
> ...



Sure. A guy can wish for all the stars in the heavens...and be disappointed. Just to be frank, and quite honest...if people didn't wind their hopes up so much for the absolutely unattainable, they might not be so disappointed when Canon releases something more, down to earth. 

It really isn't that hard:

1. 22-24mp APS-C
2. 10fps
3. Better AF system (repurpose 5D III's maybe?)

One might even get particularly hopeful, and wish for something not quite as likely, but still nevertheless more attainable than starstuff:

4. 180nm Cu Lightpipe sensor design (we know Canon has it, they already manufacture with it for smaller sensors)

Now, I might be a little dismayed when I don't get #4, but I'll still be entirely satisfied with 1-3. Might try a little realism sometime...and end up happy and satisfied, rather than devastated when your lofty hopes are all dashed to bits.


----------



## jrista (Dec 20, 2013)

dstppy said:


> Wait, aside from people ranting about DR, what exactly is wrong with the 5Dmk3 that has everyone clamoring for a successor?



Indeed. I suspect the 5D III will be around for a very long time...possibly quite a bit longer than the 5D II.


----------



## EchoLocation (Dec 20, 2013)

unfocused said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > I'm clamoring for a successor to the 5D3 to be announced, so that the price of the 5D3 will drop. I'd like to pick up a 2nd 5D3 for around $2K, and retire my 5DC.
> ...


In 2018 the price of the 5DIII will be closer to $1K than 2K. 
The 5DII was announced 9/2008. By Xmas 2011, it was on sale for $2k. I remember being extremely tempted by it but holding off knowing the 5DIII was coming soon. The 5DIII was announced 3/2012. It is now 12/2013 and the price has dropped from$3500 at launch to $2649 today at Amazon. It seems to me that it will be on sale next year around the $2300 mark if not even lower by black friday or xmas 2014
Camera technology is moving fast and prices are falling. With Sony releasing $1700 full frame compact cameras the market will soon be flooded with used full frame cameras for around $1k. Sony, Fuji and many other brands will be releasing more FF cameras even more often in the next few years. The prices of used high quality cameras will drop from the exclusive price points they have been at. 
I see the 5DII at about $600 bucks in 2018, and the 5DIII around $1250


----------



## Arctic Photo (Dec 20, 2013)

jrista said:


> WPJ said:
> 
> 
> > Thankfully, hopefully labeled 7DmII, I love my 7D
> ...


Doesn't sound too bad to me.


----------



## DaveMiko (Dec 20, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/12/a-2014-roadmap-part-1-the-7d-mark-ii-is-coming-cr2/\"></glusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/12/a-2014-roadmap-part-1-the-7d-mark-ii-is-coming-cr2/\">Tweet</a></div>
> <strong>What’s coming in 2014?
> 
> 
> ...



I really liked my 7D, so I'm curious to check the upcoming 7D Mark II (or whatever it will be called). I think I would get one when it becomes available.


----------



## greger (Dec 20, 2013)

Wow! One day it's No 7D ll. Then a day or 2 later it's a Yes there will be a 7D ll, or something new that's mean't to replace
the 7D but will be called something else because Canon wants to change the way they name their cameras. We have a 
few more days left in 2013 so keep the rumors coming. I can afford fantasy buying but am inclined to watch with interest
while I sit on my wallet.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 20, 2013)

jrista said:


> WPJ said:
> 
> 
> > Thankfully, hopefully labeled 7DmII, I love my 7D
> ...



While agree about your specs, DR and ISO noise are the two areas Canon really need to tame on the 7DII. 
The current Sony sourced sensor is pulling better DR than anything from Canon and their iso noise theshold is somewhat lower at higher resolution...where as the reast of the camera body (1Dx and 5DIII) is exstreamly advanced. It's just the sensor tech is now lagging behind. That said, a carefully exposed image should negate this issue 99% of the time.


----------



## tron (Dec 20, 2013)

Ricku said:


> So. Year of the lens and year of the camera.
> 
> But will it also be year of the sensor?
> 
> Canon has not had one of those years since the 5D2. :


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## tron (Dec 20, 2013)

Quite a rumor: "a timeframe was not given".


----------



## Marauder (Dec 20, 2013)

jrista said:


> WPJ said:
> 
> 
> > Thankfully, hopefully labeled 7DmII, I love my 7D
> ...


Yeah, the specs outlined have been rumoured before and are likely, and they are what excites me as a current 7D user. Although the 10fps will be awesome, I do have to say the possibility of 12fps is very intriguing! It'd be nice if they give the ability to adjust the fast and slow burst rates, like they do on the 1 series. You could set your fast burst to 10 or 12fps and your slow to 7 or 8fps and toggle between them depending on the sort of action you expect. Naturally, better high noise performance would also be desireable, and I remember a rumour from some time ago indicating the 7D II sensor was going to be class leading for an APC sensor, so here's hoping.  That being said, my main focus (see what I did there?) is on the improved AF, burst-rate and a deeper buffer.


----------



## WPJ (Dec 20, 2013)

Marauder said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > WPJ said:
> ...



It would be nice to be able to take a 4-7 second burst on RAW+Ljpg and not fill the buffer, really memory is cheap..... canon but an absurd amount in please........


----------



## CTJohn (Dec 20, 2013)

jrista said:


> WPJ said:
> 
> 
> > Thankfully, hopefully labeled 7DmII, I love my 7D
> ...


Agree regarding wishes 1-3 above. Why wouldn't we also expect ISO performance equivalent to the 6D (which is 3 stops or more better than my current 7D)? With fast shutter speeds needed for BIF, I'd love to be able to crank up the ISO, rather than close down the depth of field.


----------



## Triggyman (Dec 20, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> My most desired camera item at the moment is a EF Canon 50mm f/1.4 – f/2 USM (IS). As there was a CR2 about that recently, I’m hoping it will come out in 2014.
> 
> Paul



Mine, too. I want and am excited about that lens. I got the 35mm IS and I love it. Just got the hard to find hood for it yesterday.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2013)

CTJohn said:


> Why wouldn't we also expect ISO performance equivalent to the 6D (which is 3 stops or more better than my current 7D)? With fast shutter speeds needed for BIF, I'd love to be able to crank up the ISO, rather than close down the depth of field.



Why not expect the sensor to have 2.56x more surface area? That would give you the big ISO improvement you're asking about... A 180nm process might get you part of the way there with a Canon APS-C sensor. Until then, the great AF / fast fps / high ISO choice is the 1D X.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 20, 2013)

unfocused said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > I'm clamoring for a successor to the 5D3 to be announced, so that the price of the 5D3 will drop. I'd like to pick up a 2nd 5D3 for around $2K, and retire my 5DC.
> ...



Yep, the 5DIII was launched at a higher price than both the 5DI and 5DII. The 5DIII is higher specced and a more up market model to either of it's previous cousins. It would have been clearer if Canon had called the 5DIII a 5Dx and the 6D a 5DIII. Indicating that the 5DIII range was split in two models.


----------



## CTJohn (Dec 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> CTJohn said:
> 
> 
> > Why wouldn't we also expect ISO performance equivalent to the 6D (which is 3 stops or more better than my current 7D)? With fast shutter speeds needed for BIF, I'd love to be able to crank up the ISO, rather than close down the depth of field.
> ...


OK, thanks. I'm not a physicist, so I really don't know the ins and outs of sensor manufacturing. If I read this correctly, it's the sensor size that's causing the ISO performance of the 6D? The current 7D has about 63% of the sensor size of the 6D, doesn't it? Why 2.56x to get comparable?

Just trying to learn here.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 20, 2013)

CTJohn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > CTJohn said:
> ...



A FF sensor is 1.6 times as high and 1.6 times as wide as an APSC sensor... the area is 1.6X1.6 times larger, or 2.56... the area of an APS-C sensor is 39% of the area of a FF sensor, not 63%.


----------



## CTJohn (Dec 20, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> CTJohn said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Thanks! Sloppy math on my part. So the pixels on APS-C are a lot smaller than on full frame - that's why the noise is higher?


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 20, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> This is good news – hints of ‘great news’ in the future. Another CR2… that I hope will become CR3… and then… reality- a 7DmkII.
> 
> My most desired camera item at the moment is a EF Canon 50mm f/1.4 – f/2 USM (IS). As there was a CR2 about that recently, I’m hoping it will come out in 2014.
> 
> ...



INDEED!!! Finally some good news!!!


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 20, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> CTJohn said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



A good analogy is to think of a pixel as a rain guage. Both rain gauges have the same size bucket, but the FF rain guage has a funnel with 2.56 times the area of the APS-C rain gauge. If it is raining hard (bright light) then the size of the funnel really does not matter much as both of them fill up really fast. The difference comes when there is light rain (poor light/high ISO) where the bucket does not fill. In this case the FF rain gauge collects enough water for a decent reading while with the APS-C rain gauge you have to guess. If the FF gauge gives you the readings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 the APSC rain gauge would give you 2, 5, 8, and 10..

Because the APS-C rain gauge is smaller, you can fit a lot more of them in the field. You will get 2.56 times as many collection points as with the FF rain gauge and this will allow you a denser sampling of the rain pattern.

So that sums up the difference between the two. You get denser sampling with APS-C, but at the cost of the samples being less accurate.


----------



## jrista (Dec 20, 2013)

CTJohn said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > CTJohn said:
> ...



To be technically accurate, the noise is higher on APS-C because the gain is higher (must be in order to produce the same ADU values after ADC). Think of an APS-C pixel like a FF pixel used at a higher ISO. On average, ISO 100 on APS-C is about the same as ISO 250-400 on FF from a noise standpoint. This is because the smaller pixel area means the photodiode area is smaller, and charge capacity in a photodiode is primarily based on area.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 20, 2013)

jrista said:


> To be technically accurate, the noise is higher on APS-C because the gain is higher (must be in order to produce the same ADU values after ADC). Think of an APS-C pixel like a FF pixel used at a higher ISO. On average, ISO 100 on APS-C is about the same as ISO 250-400 on FF from a noise standpoint. This is because the smaller pixel area means the photodiode area is smaller, and charge capacity in a photodiode is primarily based on area.



Jon, I always appreciate your answers and your patience with those of us less technologically inclined. It's frankly a sharp contrast to some other people here who prefer to serve up every answer with sarcasm.

I do wonder though, based on your example of ISO 100 noise on APS-C being comparable to ISO 250-400 on full frame, what do you think is a reasonable high-end for a 7DII? ISO 6400 is pretty darn impressive on the 5DIII and I would be very pleased if ISO 1600 on the 7D could match that, which is seems like it should be possible based on your comments. 

What are you looking for in ISO performance from a 7DII?


----------



## CTJohn (Dec 20, 2013)

jrista said:


> CTJohn said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Thanks to jrista and Don Haines. Explanations like this are why I keep coming to this site!


----------



## jrista (Dec 20, 2013)

unfocused said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > To be technically accurate, the noise is higher on APS-C because the gain is higher (must be in order to produce the same ADU values after ADC). Think of an APS-C pixel like a FF pixel used at a higher ISO. On average, ISO 100 on APS-C is about the same as ISO 250-400 on FF from a noise standpoint. This is because the smaller pixel area means the photodiode area is smaller, and charge capacity in a photodiode is primarily based on area.
> ...



I guess there are two factors to ISO settings, for different ranges of the ISO "spectrum", so to say. At low ISO, read noise is the critical factor. The lower your read noise, the greater your dynamic range. By reducing read noise from levels that used to be pretty normal to the industry (20-40 e-, depending on pixel size), Sony Exmor (which has a relatively constant 3- read noise) was able to properly utilize the dynamic range allowed by 14-bit ADC. This affects ISO settings 100-400. 

For the other end of the range, high ISO, read noise is a factor, however more important than read noise is pixel quantum efficiency. Thanks to very efficient CDS, or correlated double sampling, Canon already has very low read noise at high ISO (from around 3.5e- to less than 1.7e- at the highest native settings), so their sensor performance is largely physics bound. Increasing quantum efficiency is the only real way to reduce noise at high ISO. The 7D has a Q.E. of 41%. Assuming we want a _*"true"*_ one full stop improvement in high ISO performance (i.e. a reduction in apparent noise by one full stop) without increasing pixel size, then quantum efficiency would need to be doubled (twice the real sensitivity, twice the rate of conversion of photons to charge). That means a Q.E. of 82%. In Canon's best sensors recently, like the 6D, they have achieved Q.E. around 50-51%. The best Q.E. for room temperature CIS these days is around 60-65%.

If we figure Canon makes some amazing strides in their sensor fabrication technology, and are able to achieve 65% Q.E., that is about a half stop improvement in high ISO performance. I don't believe Canon can reach 82% Q.E. without taking a more radical approach. The only time I've read of such a real sensitivity being achieved is with extreme cooling, usually a dual-stage TEC (peltier) cooling system with a passive or passive/active cooling system for that (i.e. a heat pipe setup to a heatsink which is further cooled by a fan.) A lot of astrophotography CCD cameras use dual-stage TEC cooling with a fan (and the good ones, the FF sensor ones, cost about $4000-6000!) 

There was mention, a while ago back near the beginning of the year, that Canon might try to employ some kind of active cooling technology. A simple fan probably wouldn't do much...all it would really serve to do is cycle the air locked inside the camera body, so eventually the ambient temperature is going to increase and the benefit of having a fan would be largely negated. Some kind of peltier, however, along with proper heat venting or other form of expelling heat to the exterior of the camera body, could reduce sensor temperature by a lot, thereby reducing dark current and increasing Q.E. I don't know how much thermoelectric cooling would be practical. You have a delicate balance of power usage (peltier's suck power like it was candy) and cooling capacity. Canon would need a battery capable of holding a much greater charge, and one capable of providing a higher continuous voltage. Practically speaking, I am not sure the digital photography world is ready for thermoelectric cooling yet. 

So, at best, absolute best, I suspect we will see a 1/3 to 1/2 stop improvement in high ISO performance in the 7D II, assuming the pixel count (and pixel size) *stay the same.* If pixel count increases, pixel size must decrease, so I suspect we will see a 1/3 stop improvement at most, if that (assuming Canon actually achieves 65% Q.E.) If Canon increases the pixel size, then that will implicitly result in larger area. A megapixel reduction along with an increase in Q.E. could result in better high ISO performance. I don't really expect that to occur...the trend is, has always been, and will likely always be towards higher and higher megapixel count. 

So, assuming Canon makes some modest gains in Q.E., increases megapixel count to around 22 megapixels (give or take 2mp), does NOT use any kind of thermoelectric cooling...I don't foresee any real improvement in high ISO at all. I see it staying roughly the same, which is saying something at the very least if megapixel count does indeed increase to 24mp.



As a side note, since it would take an increase to 82% Q.E. for the 7D II to gain a true ONE stop improvement in high ISO performance, we can never hope to see a true two stop improvement. The 7D II, nor any successor, nor any new pro-grade APS-C line of cameras from Canon or anyone else, will ever perform as well as a FF sensor that has larger pixels. So long as the average pixel size for FF sensors remains larger than the average pixel size for APS-C sensors, FF sensors will always perform better at high ISO. Nothing we can do about that...its just physics. 

Additionally, on a composition and size-normal basis (i.e. when scaling the output images of FF and APS-C sensors to the same size...equivalence), FF sensors will always perform better than APS-C sensors, no matter what the pixel size. Assuming you frame your scene identically with a FF camera and an APS-C camera, the FF camera is going to gather more total light, period. Since you can usually pack more larger pixels into the area of a FF frame than an APS-C frame, the FF image will always be sharper and have less noise than the APS-C. Even if the FF sensor had pixels the same size as the APS-C, or even smaller than the APS-C, when normalizing the results the FF sensor will _*always*_ do better. (One possible case where APS-C might achieve parity with FF is if, at ISO 100, the APS-C sensor had a stop or two better dynamic range...then, you might get similar results, but I doubt APS-C would ever produce a better result than FF.)


----------



## jrista (Dec 20, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > CTJohn said:
> ...



Great analogy! Love it!


----------



## dstppy (Dec 23, 2013)

JonAustin said:


> dstppy said:
> 
> 
> > Wait, aside from people ranting about DR, what exactly is wrong with the 5Dmk3 that has everyone clamoring for a successor?
> ...



Fair enough. I second the request for a mark 4 on those grounds alone! ;D


----------



## dstppy (Dec 23, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> dstppy said:
> 
> 
> > Price will be (puts a pinky to the corner of his mouth) one MILLION dollars. muh ha ha ha
> ...


Yeah, I've come to realize that everything that I want and don't own will be tagged with an uncomfortable (but not unattainable) price. Frustrates my relatives when I tell them not to get me anything for Christmas.


----------



## tron (Dec 23, 2013)

dstppy said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > dstppy said:
> ...


If 5D3 new costs as low as 2700$ isn't a used 5D3 close to that value? Of course it comes down to availability of used 5D3 cameras. But still a new 2700$ value 5D3 seems more attractive than a used 2000$ 5D3 one. Just my opinion...


----------



## dstppy (Dec 23, 2013)

tron said:


> dstppy said:
> 
> 
> > JonAustin said:
> ...



We're talking new . . . that and we're being silly. Unless they want to drop the price, then we're serious :


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 23, 2013)

jrista said:


> As a side note, since it would take an increase to 82% Q.E. for the 7D II to gain a true ONE stop improvement in high ISO performance, we can never hope to see a true two stop improvement. The 7D II, nor any successor, nor any new pro-grade APS-C line of cameras from Canon or anyone else, will ever perform as well as a FF sensor that has larger pixels. So long as the average pixel size for FF sensors remains larger than the average pixel size for APS-C sensors, FF sensors will always perform better at high ISO. Nothing we can do about that...its just physics.



Well, there are a few tricks that Canon could do. For example, if a camera used a series of fast exposures, the camera could do motion vector analysis on various parts of the image, then add them programmatically after compensating for camera and subject motion, resulting in roughly the same image as you'd get with the shorter shot length (blur-wise), but with the SNR of the longer shot length. However, that's way beyond the realm of sensor tech.


----------



## jrista (Dec 23, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > As a side note, since it would take an increase to 82% Q.E. for the 7D II to gain a true ONE stop improvement in high ISO performance, we can never hope to see a true two stop improvement. The 7D II, nor any successor, nor any new pro-grade APS-C line of cameras from Canon or anyone else, will ever perform as well as a FF sensor that has larger pixels. So long as the average pixel size for FF sensors remains larger than the average pixel size for APS-C sensors, FF sensors will always perform better at high ISO. Nothing we can do about that...its just physics.
> ...



How would that work with a selectable shutter speed, though? I mean, if I as the photographer chose a 1/1250s shutter speed, a single exposure that long is going to be better than multiple separate exposures blended together. You'll lose light in the interframe time as well, so gain would have to be higher...


----------



## tron (Dec 23, 2013)

dstppy said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > dstppy said:
> ...


OK! that's a better price. I saw 2nd and instead of thinking second I thought secondhand! My mistake.
But when a new version of a body is introduced the old one disappears fast! And, if the price of the new one is much higher, they will not feel much compelled to lower the price of the old one (think 24-70 2.8 version 1)


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 23, 2013)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but after reading here at CR and elsewhere for quite a few months I sense that it comes down to this. High resolution via smaller pixels is a killer of high ISO capability. APS-C will indeed give one a reach advantage when it's not possible to get closer to fill the fame with the subject but there will always be the requirement of adequate lighting (thinking tele and birds here). One has only to imagine a sensor size that keeps shrinking far beyond APS-C and thus improving the reach to realize that there is no free lunch and IQ has to suffer. Higher gain in electronics always brings amplification of noise, that much I know for sure.

Still the lingering question in my mind is, is it possible that with very good lighting a 7D2 could give an IQ similar to say my 6D and provide me with the added reach I long for (and the action advantages)?? In that case I'd buy the imaginary 7D2 as the second camera I would pack around. Any thoughts on this?

Jack


----------



## jrista (Dec 23, 2013)

Jack Douglas said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but after reading here at CR and elsewhere for quite a few months I sense that it comes down to this. High resolution via smaller pixels is a killer of high ISO capability. APS-C will indeed give one a reach advantage when it's not possible to get closer to fill the fame with the subject but there will always be the requirement of adequate lighting (thinking tele and birds here). One has only to imagine a sensor size that keeps shrinking far beyond APS-C and thus improving the reach to realize that there is no free lunch and IQ has to suffer. Higher gain in electronics always brings amplification of noise, that much I know for sure.
> 
> Still the lingering question in my mind is, is it possible that with very good lighting a 7D2 could give an IQ similar to say my 6D and provide me with the added reach I long for (and the action advantages)?? In that case I'd buy the imaginary 7D2 as the second camera I would pack around. Any thoughts on this?
> 
> Jack



IQ is more than just noise, gotta remember that. It is currently possible for some compact and mirrorless cameras that have SMALLER sensors than APS-C, and smaller pixels, to produce better IQ than your 6D under just decently good lighting. Those sensors tend to use much more advanced manufacturing processes, are usually BSI designs these days (so while pixel size is smaller, it isn't as much smaller as you might think), and the quantum efficiency of many of those sensors is over 60%. They also usually have relatively weak AA filters, which while you run the risk of encountering color moire, the sharper results help offset the increase in noise.

So yes, it is most certainly possible for the 7D II to produce excellent IQ, in decent light or better, that would rival your 6D. The 6D would always have less noise, but in the event that reach and detail is the more important factor, it doesn't really matter how much noise the 7D II has, so long as you capture that extra detail. (Sharp detail has the effect of greatly mitigating the *perceived *impact of noise.) It is only when speaking purly in terms of noise, and especially in the context of identical framing, where FF sensors will always be better than crop sensors. Make sure you understand that: Identical Framing. You would either need a longer lens on FF, or you would need to be closer. Why does that allow the FF to be better? Two significant reasons: 

1. You are putting more pixels on the subject, as FF sensors usually have more pixels than APS-C sensors.
2. You are putting larger pixels on the subject, as FF sensors usually have larger pixels than APS-C sensors.

Between those two things in concert, you can get SIGNIFICANTLY better IQ...you have less noisy pixels, and probably more of them (at least in the case of the current 7D...a 7D II might have more than the 6D.) Scaling a larger more detailed image down to the same size as a smaller image is going to reduce noise even more, and result in even sharper results. That is why a 1200mm f/8 lens on a 5D III will still produce better results than a 600mm f/4 lens on a 7D. You have 22.3 megapixels of larger, less noisy pixels covering the same relative area of your subject. The 5D III also has a slightly weaker AA filter, so the detail it resolves is sharper to boot, which has that perceptual impact to noise. Scale those 22.3mp down to 18.1mp, and the results just get that much better (as scaling averages noise, reducing it further.)

The 7D II is just as likely to come in at 24mp as at 18-20mp, so it is possible that it would have more pixels. That would be where your REAL reach advantage comes from. Depending on how strong the AA filter is, those 24mp might be crisp and sharp, somewhat susceptible to Moire, but maybe detailed enough to achieve parity with the 6D/5DIII. That's just in the interim, though. At some point, Canon is going to release higher resolution FF sensors. We might see a 46mp FF sensor in the near future not long after the 7D II. When that happens, FF will once again have both a total pixel count and a pixel size advantage. Even tough the pixels will be smaller than the 5D III or 6D, they will still be larger than the pixels of a 7D II. So while there may be periodic leapfrogging that temporarily brings APS-C bodies to parity with older FF bodies, that benefit will itself always be leapfrogged. 

That's the nature of the game, though.  You just gotta evaluate your needs, weigh your choices, and make a decision. A camera body is generally only going to last a few years before your going to find a good enough reason to upgrade. My 7D will barely be three years old by the time I purchase my next body. My 450D didn't even last much more than two years before it was the most significant thing holding me back. This is why you will regularly hear photographers most ubiquitous quote:* A body is ephemeral, glass lasts forever. * 

If you are truly serious about photography, buy the right glass for the things you photograph. I love birds and wildlife. I need reach, but I also want quality. The 7D is a good camera, but it's showing it's age. I live in an area where birds are extremely wary of people, so it's difficult to get close, even with skill. I intend to move to full frame at some point, so I'll need even longer lenses (400mm was the sweet spot on APS-C, and 600mm is the sweet spot on FF.) I am no pro (not yet, at least, I have aspirations! ), and my work is ok, but by no means great. I spent over ten grand this year on a 600mm f/4 L II lens. I used up a huge chunk of savings that, in hindsight, I could have used to help me through the time I'm going through now. But I don't regret the purchase. It was the best purchase I made. The investment account I had my money in has languished, not really moved anywhere, and it's not really expected to move. But I managed to purchase the lens for about $3000 off list price, and the current sale prices are still about $2500 over what I paid. If I amortize the cost of the lens over my lifetime, another 35-40 years, it actually costs me less than $1 per day!  

The best value for your money is glass. It lasts for decades, and there is nothing that surpasses really good glass. You could work your way slowly towards the ultimate prize, something like the 500mm or 600mm lens, but your really just increasing your total long term cost. If you have the ability, save, save like you've never saved before, invest in big dividend payers or monetize your current photography or whatever you can to scrounge up the money you need to buy the lens that will really do your photography justice. A 500mm f/4 or 600mm f/4 lens will last you forever, and in that same eternity, you'll buy a dozen camera bodies, and each one will always be better than the last (even if they are mid or lower end, like the 6D). And the quality and reach of either of those lenses will be the biggest boon for your bird photography, hands down.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 23, 2013)

Well, as often happens, Jon has provided an excellent technical explanation -- far better than anything I could hope to provide. 

Obviously, this is a subject of major debate on internet forums with both sides holding something that resembles religious zeal.

Here is my understanding: If the choice is between a uncropped APS-C image and a full frame image cropped to the same field of view, the cropped 6D image will often be as good or better than the APS-C image. That's because you can afford to "throw away" quite a few pixels and still have a decent image for most purposes.

However, if the choice is between a significantly cropped APS-C image and an even greater cropped 6D image, there will be circumstances where the APS-C image will be better. With either sensor, at some point in cropping there just won't be enough pixels left to get you a good image and you'll reach that point sooner with a 6D because more pixels have to be cropped away to achieve the same field of view.

Since many wildlife, birding and sports shooters are distance limited (you simply cannot get closer because of physical restrictions or the nature of the subject) under the right conditions an APS-C can give a better image because there will be more pixels to work with in the final image.

Now, to jump the shark a bit here: One of the more mind-bending thoughts I have had is wondering if the rumored high-megapixel camera might actually be an APS-C camera. Imagine, for a moment, if Canon were to offer a 30-40 mp APS-C camera with roughly the same sensor performance as the current 7D sensor. While it would never match a full frame at higher ISOs, let's say it could come close at say, ISO 800 or below.

To use your example of shooting in good light, imagine then how useful it would be to have an APS-C camera with a 400mm f5.6 lens (effective focal length of 640) and then be able to crop that image down to 10 mp. In essence cropping away 2/3rd to 3/4 of the original frame. 

I would argue that such a camera, if possible, would be in much greater demand that a high-megapixel full frame studio camera as there are a lot more sports, bird and wildlife photographers out there than there are studio shooters with a need for high megapixels. In addition, since most bird and wildlife photographers fall into the "enthusiast" category, they have deeper pockets than many professional studio shooters, who would have to justify the expense by determining if it earns them any money. A constraint that enthusiasts don't have to deal with.


----------



## jrista (Dec 23, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Well, as often happens, Jon has provided an excellent technical explanation -- far better than anything I could hope to provide.



Thanks! Please, though, don't ever let my answers prevent you from writing one of your own!



unfocused said:


> Obviously, this is a subject of major debate on internet forums with both sides holding something that resembles religious zeal.
> 
> Here is my understanding: If the choice is between a uncropped APS-C image and a full frame image cropped to the same field of view, the cropped 6D image will often be as good or better than the APS-C image. That's because you can afford to "throw away" quite a few pixels and still have a decent image for most purposes.
> 
> ...



+1 8)

(Oh, and for reference, at a the exact same 4.3µm pixel size of the 18mp APS-C, you would have 47.6mp FF. )


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 23, 2013)

Thanks *unfocused and jrista*!!

That's a lot to digest but it's making more sense every day. Very thorough!

In buying the 6D I went cheap camera so I had no problem buying the 300 2.8 II. Don't know if I'll ever be able to make the jump to say 600 F4 but I do know that I have very strong positive feelings about having bought the 300. I've gotten 100's of beautiful shots this season that have revved up my desire for next year to a level I never imagined possible when getting into the Nikon D5100 DSLR just two years ago. WOW.

So, I will wait patiently for more on the 7D2 or whatever while loving my 6D because 300 X2 is a mighty fine compromise that gets me more than I ever imagined. Remember I once shot with a Canon F1 and a 200 F4 and was actually pretty happy. Amazing isn't it.

Now when it comes to another $12- 15K for more glass boy that's a tough one because I'm already retired and not loaded! 

Jack


----------



## jrista (Dec 23, 2013)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thanks *unfocused and jrista*!!
> 
> That's a lot to digest but it's making more sense every day. Very thorough!
> 
> ...



The 300/2.8 II and a 7D II would make a phenomenal combo. If your going crop, the 300/2.8 is probably the better lens, as it still offers phenomenal quality with a 1.4x TC (420mm real, 672mm effective focal length). You would probably only need a 500/600 f/4 if you went full frame, like a 5D III, because to maintain that "same framing" I talked about, you simply have to go with a longer focal length. If you stick with APS-C, then it sounds like you already have your long-term glass.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 23, 2013)

Well jrista, that's what I'm wondering. The 6D has proven to be very capable for stationary subjects with the odd grumble when I've been in need of a spot focus away from center point due to a full frame capture - rare indeed, maybe 2% of my shots. But BIF is another matter. For me the 7D2 would be very useful if the AF is top notch and the added reach gave me the ability to fill the frame. I think the 1.4X would do the trick being more than the 300 X2 I presently use 90% of the time. However, I'd be more thrilled if 300 X2 X1.6 was an option that was still good!  I guess that's hoping for a lot.

A day with decent lighting and I'm often at ISO 1250 with the 6D and no complaints so that may not be too big of an issue. If a 7D2 would handle that with ease I'd be happy. I think the two would complement each other nicely.

Jack


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 23, 2013)

Well, I'd say in real life a cropped EOS 6D pic won't quite cut it [below ISO 1600 that is], but a cropped D800 FF pic (15.3 MP) is better than a 7D APS-C 18 MP picture. I've seen it.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 23, 2013)

Jack Douglas said:


> A day with decent lighting and I'm often at ISO 1250 with the 6D and no complaints so that may not be too big of an issue. If a 7D2 would handle that with ease I'd be happy. I think the two would complement each other nicely.



Unless you relly want/need a second body and are willing to lug it along you might be better off with a 5D III [not to mention a Nikon D800]. Gives you a better AF-system than 7D and virtually equal IQ to 6D.


----------



## jrista (Dec 24, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > A day with decent lighting and I'm often at ISO 1250 with the 6D and no complaints so that may not be too big of an issue. If a 7D2 would handle that with ease I'd be happy. I think the two would complement each other nicely.
> ...



He is speaking hypothetically about a 7D II, not the current 7D. If a 7D II does bring improved IQ (and at 24mp with a very slightly weaker AA filter than the 7D), and a better AF system, it could indeed give the 6D and possibly even the 5D III a run for their money (until the 5D IV comes along.)


----------



## jrista (Dec 24, 2013)

Jack Douglas said:


> Well jrista, that's what I'm wondering. The 6D has proven to be very capable for stationary subjects with the odd grumble when I've been in need of a spot focus away from center point due to a full frame capture - rare indeed, maybe 2% of my shots. But BIF is another matter. For me the 7D2 would be very useful if the AF is top notch and the added reach gave me the ability to fill the frame. I think the 1.4X would do the trick being more than the 300 X2 I presently use 90% of the time. However, I'd be more thrilled if 300 X2 X1.6 was an option that was still good!  I guess that's hoping for a lot.
> 
> A day with decent lighting and I'm often at ISO 1250 with the 6D and no complaints so that may not be too big of an issue. If a 7D2 would handle that with ease I'd be happy. I think the two would complement each other nicely.
> 
> Jack



Depending on what kind of birds you are shooting, and whether you are photographing them in flight or not, you will want the full range of versatility the 300/2.8 and both the 1.4x and 2x TCs give you. For stationary small birds...songbirds on the perch, shorebirds, you will easily want 600/5.6. I've used that combo, it's great, IQ takes a hit but it is still as good as the 100-400 L.

For BIF, 420/4 is ideal. I have also used that combo (and this was a while ago now, about a year and a half or so, and my BIF still was NOT very good), and it is GREAT for BIF. The ~400mm focal length on APS-C is really as LONG as you want to go for most BIF, which is usually of larger birds...raptors, waders, waterfowl and the like...they fill the frame at a comfortable distance at 420mm on APS-C. The 300/2.8 is a lighter lens than the 600/4, so it is even better for BIF (which is why it's on my list, even for FF.) 

For both wildlife and BIF, 300/2.8 really can't be beat. You'll need to get a bit closer to the birds, but you won't have the framing problems you will inevitably sometimes encounter at 420mm or longer (the bird is GOING to move around in the frame, the tighter you frame, the more likely it is that a not so insignificant percentage of your shots are of half a bird, head or tail). With a 7D II's reach, at 300mm f/2.8, you will have TONS of light, FAST AF, and plenty of room in the frame to track the bird. Assuming the 7D II gets a better AF system than the 7D, that combo would be a BIFfers dream. 

The 300mm f/2.8 lens is also ideal for wildlife in closer quarters at sunrise/sunset, where light can be poor. You can also slap on the 1.4x TC for 420/4, which is ideal for medium to longer distances for wildlife. 

So, if you have your heart set on a 7D II (or whatever it is Canon releases to replace the 7D), you already have your top notch glass! I don't recommend changing a thing (unless you don't have BOTH the 1.4x III and 2x III EF teleconverters...get both, you'll definitely want them!)


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 24, 2013)

jrista, it's like you're buttering me up for something - like you have shares in Canon and want me to buy a 7D2! 

I'll buy it in a heartbeat if what you're saying turns into reality. I didn't buy the 5D3 because the 6D was cheaper and would be a great second camera (call it my wife's ) 

The trouble with threads like this is they tend to be distractive in nature, making one less appreciative of the present blessings in life! Now I'll be waiting a little less patiently. 

Jack


----------



## jrista (Dec 24, 2013)

Jack Douglas said:


> jrista, it's like you're buttering me up for something - like you have shares in Canon and want me to buy a 7D2!
> 
> I'll buy it in a heartbeat if what you're saying turns into reality. I didn't buy the 5D3 because the 6D was cheaper and would be a great second camera (call it my wife's )
> 
> ...



LOL. I do not own shares in Canon, but I do want you to feel happy with your purchase of the 300/2.8 after everything I said about the 500mm & 600mm f/4s. For crop users, it's a great lens, and since you already spent the money on it, and you plan to go crop, you should feel good about it.

I just got back from a trip photographing raptors and wildlife at one of the local state parks about an hour ago. I know I said you want a 420mm lens for BIF, but I thought I'd share that it is more than possible to do BIF at longer focal lengths if you have the skill:

*Ferruginous Hawk, 7D + 600/4 II, 1/400s f/6.3 @ ISO 400:*






















Hand held, no tripod. Slight crops, as I mentioned before, you want there to be some negative space in the frame to allow the bird some buffer room. The whole setup is heavy, at around 11 pounds, but sometimes, when you have a skittish hawk like this beautiful Ferruginous, the extra focal length can actually be helpful. (On FF, I'd have slapped on a 1.4x TC for 840mm, which would have been roughly the same.)

The 300/2.8 is still great, as if you have the need for 600mm BIF, you can always slap on the 2x TC III. (The loss of a stop of light might hurt your AF performance, but if the 7D II gets an improved AF system, that should be as good as the 7D, as the 19pt AF system is jittery as it is.)


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 24, 2013)

Thanks for the shared enthusiasm, jrista. My spirits aren't easily dampened. I do like to make the best informed decisions and that means sifting through some threads with misinformation and using discretion. It is usually possible to discern who really knows what they are talking about. Of course there are always differing opinions and that's fine. 

Somehow I can't believe I could handle the 600 F4 handheld for more than a few seconds. On the other hand the 300 is very manageable and that's important to me since I like to hike through the bush and have maximum mobility.

At any rate I'm understanding better why so many folk are waiting for the 7D upgrade. Do you think trying my friends 70D with my 300 would represent something close to what I'll likely get with the 7D2? That seems to be a pretty impressive camera.

Jack


----------



## jrista (Dec 24, 2013)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thanks for the shared enthusiasm, jrista. My spirits aren't easily dampened. I do like to make the best informed decisions and that means sifting through some threads with misinformation and using discretion. It is usually possible to discern who really knows what they are talking about. Of course there are always differing opinions and that's fine.
> 
> Somehow I can't believe I could handle the 600 F4 handheld for more than a few seconds. On the other hand the 300 is very manageable and that's important to me since I like to hike through the bush and have maximum mobility.
> 
> ...



Using the 70D will give you an idea of what it is like to work with a crop factor, and the current 19pt AF system. The pixel density is ok, 18mp, but the key thing is the 1.6x crop factor (which affects your FoV, and is a part of the added "reach"). You will most likely notice the drop in IQ...that old 18mp sensor is WAY past its age, and desperately needs to be replaced. It isn't anywhere as good as the 6D sensor. 

You should also get a feel for the higher frame rate. That is one of the key areas that is improved, and it is really nice having a high burst rate. I don't know what the 70D buffer depth is, however on the 7D, I currently get ~35 frames before slowdown, which is another huge boon (especially for BIF). 

So, anyway, yeah give the 70D a try. It'll give you an idea about a few things. The 7D II should really have a major boost to IQ, so you wont' get an idea about that, but the crop factor and frame rate will probably come as a bit of a surprise.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 24, 2013)

jrista said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



You're assuming a mechanical shutter. Consider a vertically stacked sensor that can push its value down to a buffer deeper in the silicon or, for simplicity, an interline transfer design. You can then sample the image with no rolling shutter (bette for video) and no delay between shots. If a mechanical shutter is desirable for some reason, open it before the first frame and close it at the end.


----------



## jrista (Dec 24, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > dgatwood said:
> ...



It matters not whether the shutter is mechanical or electronic. What matters is that the PHOTOGRAPHER selects the EXPOSURE TIME (shutter speed). Shutter speed is shutter speed, regardless of whether the shutter is mechanical or electronic. If the photographer chooses a 1/2000th shutter speed, then that is AS LONG AS the camera can expose. Trying to make a better exposure by taking several short exposures within that 1/2000th window is likely impossible. At the very least, there is going to be some lag time for read or "ship the charge off to a buffer" between each partial exposure. That lag time is going to cost you light. Because shutter speed is a user selectable quantity of time, gathering light for that total time is the best we can do.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 25, 2013)

jrista said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Other way around. The user typically chooses an exposure time with the primary goal of avoiding blur from camera or subject motion. If the user allows the camera to do so, however, the camera could use a much *longer* exposure than what the user selected, dicing that long exposure up into pieces of the user-specified length, and compensating for motion to approximate an exposure of the user-chosen duration while gaining increased accuracy in portions of the image that did not change significantly or exhibited only trivial transformation, such as shifting one way or the other, similar to the way MPEG compression reduces data rate by describing portions of one frame in terms of adjacent frames.

BTW, with an electronic shutter, there should be very little (if any) gap between frames. Some CCDs with electronic shutters can dump hundreds or even thousands of frames per second, which means that the gap can't be much more than single-digit or perhaps double-digit microseconds, either of which would almost certainly be completely ignorable.

As far as I can tell, the hard part is not the sensor side; it's being able to dump ten times as many RAW-sized images to the flash card so that such post-processing would even be possible. It's almost certainly infeasible right now, but I'd expect it to be pretty easy to do in just a few years. It could be substantially longer before cameras would have fast enough CPUs to do that sort of processing internally, of course. Alternatively, it might be possible sooner with the use of some sort of perverse RAW-MPEG encoding in which each subsequent frame in the set is described relative to the first, but the compute power required would be... considerable.

As an added bonus, with an electronic shutter, the camera could examine a few shots before and after the moment when the user presses the shutter like an iPhone does, choosing the least smeared, and defaulting to using that one as the base frame for correction purposes. Whether shots taken before the lens fully focuses are useful or not is a different question, but I figure that by the time we see something like I'm describing, we'll probably also have light-field sensors that will make those shots almost usable.... Or not. Hard to say.


----------



## jrista (Dec 25, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > dgatwood said:
> ...



This sounds conceptually along the same lines as lytro...capture as much information in an exposure as possible, and deal with everything else in post. It is an interesting idea, but it is actually a fairly significant shift from how photographers thing about things now. I am not so sure how viable allowing the camera to control the actual exposure time really is. 

In my case, I expect to know exactly how long the shutter is. It isn't just about compensating for or eliminating subject motion blur, it is more about compensating for camera shake (yes, even with IS or on a tripod.) If a photographer expects an exposure to be a known tiny fraction of a second, but the camera decides it will be a much larger fraction of a second, the likelihood of the camera user moving the camera themselves in a detrimentally significant way is very real. The camera, rather than the photographer, now determines how long the shutter is "open" (mechanical or electronic), rather than the photographer, and that is a hidden quantity...the photographer doesn't know, and assuming there was some kind of feedback mechanism to allow them to know, it is still a very different way of performing photography, and the chance for human error is very real and significant.

While the idea could, theoretically, allow for infinite dynamic range, I think it would require retraining photographers to think differently...and that is never an easy thing to do.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 25, 2013)

exposure time should remain completely under (stills) phtotographer's discrete control. 
It is much more tahn only a technical parameter to achieve "correct" exposure of a scene and/or images free from shake-induced blur and from motion-induced blur when moving subjects are in the scene.
While for many images photographers will be happy with an exposurte time in a fairly wide range, there are many other situations, where we want to set a specific exposure time to achieve certain effects in the image .. from completely frozen motion t0 "dragging shutter" to consciously make motion blur show up. This would be defeated if the actual exposure was a composite of a series of "nano-sliced" exposure times selected at the camera algorithms' discretion. To me only acceptable in operating modes where exposure time is already currently set by program parameters/algorithms ... "green box", Av, P - but definitely not in Time Value ("Tv") or Manual ("M") mode.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 25, 2013)

I don't see why setting exposure time with single shot HDR is such a hard thing to grasp. If the camera just tells you the longest exposure of the group, and you already set how many shots per group and the difference in exposure per shot, everything is a known quantity.
All we need is an "HDR" slot on the mode dial.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 25, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> exposure time should remain completely under (stills) phtotographer's discrete control.



Oh, it would be, under what I was describing. You'd set your exposure time, and then in post, you could control which adjacent subframes get merged in and which ones don't (including using just the single subframe). When viewed in-camera, it could either make an educated guess or show you just the single subframe, depending on user preference.


----------



## jrista (Dec 25, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > exposure time should remain completely under (stills) phtotographer's discrete control.
> ...



That means the results are entirely arbitrary. You aren't doing exposure at all, your simply ripping out a bunch of frames agnostic if an explicit exposure time. I think that is even conceptually more difficult for most photographers to grasp (not to mention MASSIVELY wasteful of space). Again, it could theoretically allow you to have infinite DR, but it would make photography very difficult, rather than very easy (and it's never been easier than it is today.) 

Exposure control needs to be under photographer control. You can't arbitrarily take a photograph and then decide exposure in post...you could massively underexpose if a majority of the frames ended up "unusable" once you got it all onto a computer. This isn't an argument about an option for improving sensor sensitivity or dynamic range, it is a discussion about redesigning the entire way we do photography, which I think is out of context. 



9VIII said:


> I don't see why setting exposure time with single shot HDR is such a hard thing to grasp. If the camera just tells you the longest exposure of the group, and you already set how many shots per group and the difference in exposure per shot, everything is a known quantity.
> All we need is an "HDR" slot on the mode dial.



We weren't originally talking about HDR. We *were *talking about sensor performance, and how to improve it (at a fundamental technical level, abstract of any actual specific use case.)


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 25, 2013)

jrista said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Not really. I'm not talking about summing; I'm talking about averaging. The user experience would be exactly the same as it is now, at least on the camera side. If you asked such a camera for a 1/250th shot, it would take a 1/250th shot. It would just also silently take several more 1/250th shots, choose the least blurred, show you that one, and make the others available for future manipulation and processing that could further reduce noise by doing interframe correlation, motion compensation (motion of parts of the image, not just the image as a whole), and blending. You'd have to make pretty major changes to the processing workflow to take maximum advantage of such a feature, but it wouldn't fundamentally change photography by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't think you could do it the other way—using shorter exposures and summing them to get enough of a signal so that you could choose the exposure in post-processing—because that would significantly increase the effect of preamplifier noise coming off the sensor, barring some sort of supercooled hardware.




jrista said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see why setting exposure time with single shot HDR is such a hard thing to grasp. If the camera just tells you the longest exposure of the group, and you already set how many shots per group and the difference in exposure per shot, everything is a known quantity.
> ...



Actually, I basically was. The way most cameras approach HDR is almost precisely what I was describing; the only differences are in whether you change the exposure in subsequent shots and in the processing on the back end.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 25, 2013)

thanks, but no thanks. 

I only take HDR sequences as a measure of last resort and when use it, I want to have it all entirely under my direct control - at time of capture, not only in post, wading through dozens or hundreds of shots. I want to chose how many exposures and all parameters of these.

I don't want anything more along the lines of "all cameras being video cams and stills being just single frames extracted from the video stream". No, no, no. 

I also don't like the approach taken e.g. in Nikon 1 where the thingie klicks off a number of shots before you even fully press the shutter button and then attempts to select "the best" capture.

Sometimes I just like it blurred. Even if my camera and its japanese engineers cannot understand why.


----------



## mkabi (Dec 26, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> I don't want anything more along the lines of "all cameras being video cams and stills being just single frames extracted from the video stream". No, no, no.



You're getting it wrong...
I'm sure, when you use your 7D it isn't always shooting 7-8fps...
If you have 24fps or higher... you just have more chances to capture the perfect moment.
E.g. when a lion pounces on a wilder beast or when a eagle grabs a trout from a river, when Beckam bends it.

People that own a 14fps 1DX.... do you wish for higher?
If so why?
If not, why is 14fps perfect or why not settle for less?


----------



## WPJ (Dec 26, 2013)

mkabi said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I don't want anything more along the lines of "all cameras being video cams and stills being just single frames extracted from the video stream". No, no, no.
> ...



I don't have, I would like to have as I see my bursts sometimes off by that fraction of a second for the while burst.

now when in video mode I think it is easier to capture that videoo is because of the less pixles we are working with. Try pumping out full fram pixels for 30 minutes at 60f/sec how many TB of storage are ya gong to need.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 26, 2013)

I see. Ignoring the limitations of current technology, rather than having all the photosites fill and read once after a set time, you could instead record many short exposures and combine them however you please in post to make the desired exposure. Theoretically it should be able to come to the exact same end result, just with the flexibility to trim or add exposure time and dynamic range.


----------



## jrista (Dec 26, 2013)

mkabi said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I don't want anything more along the lines of "all cameras being video cams and stills being just single frames extracted from the video stream". No, no, no.
> ...



There is a point where you end up with too many frames. At 8fps, I get a LOT of frames. It is a lot of work to wade through them all in post. I imagine 12fps is even more heavy duty work to pick out the good ones and weed out the bad ones in post. Then you have to process them all, and while you can do some of that in bulk, you still have to fine tune each photo. At 24fps or higher, you would just have WAY too many frames to deal with. Not only is that going to use an immensely greater volume of disk space, but it would begin to exponentially increase your workload in post. I can't even imagine what 30 or 60 frames per second would be like...one fraction of a second would get you a dozen frames, a SHORT few-seconds would get you hundreds of frames. It's impractical to have that many frames to deal with in post.

That's why, with a 1D X, you have the handy option of configuring a "slow" burst rate that is lower than 12fps, because you don't necessarily always want so many frames for all kinds of action. Some action benefits from a larger separation between frames, rather than less, and fewer frames is easier to deal with in post. Unlimited frames is not really a good thing, it needlessly increases your workload with rapidly diminishing returns when you get around 20fps and higher.


----------



## mkabi (Dec 26, 2013)

jrista said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



What do you mean, you have to process them all?

If the 1D X has the option of slowing burst rate from 12fps, you think they won't slow it down from 24fps?
Even Magic Lantern allows you to increase and slow down fps... and thats in video mode... I can shoot from 1 or 2fps to all the way to 35fps at 1080p using FPS override.

@Jrista specifically... you currently have the 7D, and you use the 600mm f/4 on it.
I'm sure the 600mm cost you a pretty penny. I've checked out your pictures (on your site), I'm sure you're happy with them, right? 

Why not upgrade to FF, instead of wasting your time with APS-C?
And, use extenders to give you that extra reach?

@ Everyone else... Lets be real, look at canon history.... 7D to t2i to 60D to t3i to t4i to t5i... all had the same sensor.
70D comes out, new sensor.... what do you really think is going to be in 7D mark ii? A newer sensor from the 70D? Not a friggin chance....

Even if they took away the video mode, its still going to have 70D sensor in it... canon history shows that....
You're just wasting your breath complaining... if you're happy with the current 7D, stick with it.

I remember reading someone emailing Canon directly about getting a camera to compete with the D800, and they replied back that it is a niche market. Cause it is... a niche market... 
Hasselblad, Leica, Mamiya, Phase One.... they cater to this niche market... none of those cameras have video... Image quality is through the roof... but so is price.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 26, 2013)

mkabi said:


> What do you mean, you have to process them all?



This raises an interesting question..... Can you batch process images in Lightroom?


----------



## jrista (Dec 27, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > What do you mean, you have to process them all?
> ...



You guys aren't quite understanding. You have to process them all...not necessarily manually tweak each and every image. You have to go through them all and pick keepers and rejects. Not every frame will be ideal. You have to FIND the ideal frames. You have to look at them at full size to identify which ones are ideal. Some frames may appeal ideal as a thumbnail, but end up obviously blurry when viewed at full size. There is no quick way to identify picks and rejects. THAT is a VERY time consuming process, and gets more and more time consuming as RAW image sizes get larger. Having 1-2 second bursts that result in 40-60 frames is insane. Not only would you need terrabyte sized memory cards, you would need tens of terrabytes of disk space to store everything, unless you don't keep the majority of your shots (personally, I keep as much as I can, and only literally delete obvious rejects...plainly out of focus, wildly motion blurred, etc.) 

At 60fps, a 2 second burst is 120 frames. That's just a ludicrous amount of data, no matter how you look at it. I would be very happy with 10fps...8fps is sometimes just slightly too short on occasion, and a slightly higher frame rate would fix that. But I wouldn't ever want 20 or more...just far too much data to deal with, requiring a much greater expenditure in storage space across the board. Impractical.

Also, don't forget...keywording, metadata, and any other form of organization of your images. I tend to tune the keywords for and explicitly add metadata to each of the images I do not reject to improve searchability.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 27, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > What do you mean, you have to process them all?
> ...



Answered my own question..... Yes, you can batch process images in Lightroom..... Kind of shoots the "increased workload with higher frame rates" argument in the foot....


----------



## jrista (Dec 27, 2013)

mkabi said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > mkabi said:
> ...



See my reply to Don's last message.



mkabi said:


> If the 1D X has the option of slowing burst rate from 12fps, you think they won't slow it down from 24fps?
> Even Magic Lantern allows you to increase and slow down fps... and thats in video mode... I can shoot from 1 or 2fps to all the way to 35fps at 1080p using FPS override.



I am saying that 24fps is beyond the level where most photographers would want to deal with the output. At 20fps and beyond, it's just too much data. There are plenty of times when I think I get too many shots with my 7D...I've spend a considerable amount of effort trying to hone my skill with the shutter button, in an attempt to reduce as much as possible the excess...at this point, I generally get 3-5 frames a burst, and I am generally able to get just the action sequences I want.



mkabi said:


> @Jrista specifically... you currently have the 7D, and you use the 600mm f/4 on it.
> I'm sure the 600mm cost you a pretty penny. I've checked out your pictures (on your site), I'm sure you're happy with them, right?



I am satisfied with some of them. I'm a perfectonist, and in my opinion, I still have a long road ahead of me...



mkabi said:


> Why not upgrade to FF, instead of wasting your time with APS-C?
> And, use extenders to give you that extra reach?



I fully intend to. Buying a $13,000 lens tends to drain you of excess funds for a while. 




mkabi said:


> @ Everyone else... Lets be real, look at canon history.... 7D to t2i to 60D to t3i to t4i to t5i... all had the same sensor.
> 70D comes out, new sensor.... what do you really think is going to be in 7D mark ii? A newer sensor from the 70D? Not a friggin chance....
> 
> Even if they took away the video mode, its still going to have 70D sensor in it... canon history shows that....
> You're just wasting your breath complaining... if you're happy with the current 7D, stick with it.



You are conveniently ignoring what Canon themselves have explicitly said about the 7D II. It WILL get a new sensor, and possibly even a new name to go along with whatever "special" think they intend to do with it.


----------



## jrista (Dec 27, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > mkabi said:
> ...



Please see my previous answer. It isn't the actual processing. You can batch that, but at least in my case, after batch applying initial edits, each of my picks inevitably needs additional processing. Batch just reduces that part of the workload. The part of post processing that I am referring to, however, is not the editing, its the culling, organizing, etc.


----------



## mkabi (Dec 27, 2013)

jrista said:


> You are conveniently ignoring what Canon themselves have explicitly said about the 7D II. It WILL get a new sensor, and possibly even a new name to go along with whatever "special" think they intend to do with it.



Am I conveniently ignoring? I don't care if I am wrong, but....
Please provide a link to this official press release by Canon.


----------



## mkabi (Dec 27, 2013)

mkabi said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You are conveniently ignoring what Canon themselves have explicitly said about the 7D II. It WILL get a new sensor, and possibly even a new name to go along with whatever "special" think they intend to do with it.
> ...



Oh, by the way... if you have found this "official press release" and they did say that the "7D II will receive a new sensor" technically the sensor from the 70D put into the 7D II is a "new" sensor compared to the original 7D. You can't argue with them if they put in the dual pixel 70D sensor into the 7D, "oh but you said that the 7D II will receive a new sensor" they will say that is a new sensor.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 27, 2013)

mkabi said:


> Oh, by the way... if you have found this "official press release" and they did say that the "7D II will receive a new sensor" technically the sensor from the 70D put into the 7D II is a "new" sensor compared to the original 7D. You can't argue with them if they put in the dual pixel 70D sensor into the 7D, "oh but you said that the 7D II will receive a new sensor" they will say that is a new sensor.



No, no, no - Canon will not be quite SOOO cheap. Almost, but not quite. ;D

Even with my rather low expectation regarding Canon's innovative zest  - I do expect the 7D II (whatever it may be called) .. to be announced in 2014 to NOT have the 70D sensor .. but something "slightly improved" ... say 24 MP and 0.1 EV better DR ... and of course Dualpixel-AF and other "video Optimization" on board. ;D

I am rather sure ... because otherwise even Canon could not possibly charge USD/€ 2500 for the 7D II (whatever its goin to be called) ... lol


----------



## mkabi (Dec 27, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, by the way... if you have found this "official press release" and they did say that the "7D II will receive a new sensor" technically the sensor from the 70D put into the 7D II is a "new" sensor compared to the original 7D. You can't argue with them if they put in the dual pixel 70D sensor into the 7D, "oh but you said that the 7D II will receive a new sensor" they will say that is a new sensor.
> ...



Really? After 4 years... in terms of MP... the difference between 5D Mark II and the 5D Mark III is 1MP.
Even if you take into consideration, the 50D to 60D to 70D, the increments are relatively small max 2-3MP.
The Biggest surprise of them all was the 1Dx... it was an increase from the 1D, but a decrease from the 1Ds.

You're telling me that the 7D Mark II will have a whole 6MP difference between Mark I & II?
May be if they changed the name, but that won't make it a 7D mark II... its a different gear altogether.

€ 2500 for an APS-C??? Why??? Have you seen the prices of the 6D and even the 5D mark III, lately?


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 27, 2013)

mkabi said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > mkabi said:
> ...



18 or 20 megapixels is now ancient history..... Just like when 10 was normal and then we all made the big jump to high megapixel cameras with 18 meg sensors, we will soon arrive at a time where 25 meg is the new 18


----------



## mkabi (Dec 27, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



I don't think Canon got that memo when they released the 1Dx, SL1, EOS M, EOS M2, t5i, even the 6D and 70D has only 20.2.

I'm not complaining, 18MP is all I need.


----------



## jrista (Dec 28, 2013)

mkabi said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > mkabi said:
> ...



Canon got the memo people were sending with the 1D X, 5D III and 6D: Fewer megapixels, better high ISO. That WAS the outcry before the D800. I asked for it (along with higher frame rate, which the 1D X delivers in spades.) 

However, SINCE the D800, the memo being sent from Canon fans is different. They already got their low megapixel camera that kicks ass at high ISO. Now, they want something different. They want high MP...as many megapixels as they can get their hands on. And more dynamic range. Different messages, different times. Canon delivered, exquisitely, EXACTLY what their customers asked for with the last round of major upgrades. The low-end entry lebel rebels and whatnot don't matter...no one really gives a damn about them, they are unimportant in the grand scheme of things. The 70D is barely important, even, more of a stopgap to fill in the time till the 7D II release than anything, and a tool to showcase the fact that Canon is still innovating in the sensor realm. Consumers will buy the entry level and midrange camera models pretty much regardless, so their stats aren't nearly as important. The camera models that matter are the xD series models. The high end models. The models that have a FOUR YEAR cycle, rather than a one year cycle. 

It is still early, rather quite early, for Canon to be releasing replacements for the 1D X, 5D III, and 6D. The 7D was released a bit after the 5D II, so it is no surprise it's coming would be later...however if Canon was indeed caught off guard with the onslaught of high megapixel parts from SoNikon, it is no surprise they require additional time to respond to the new demand, the demand for higher megapixels. The 7D II won't just be some mediocre half-assed upgrade. The 7D is a professional-grade part, Canon knows it's a popular line, Canon knows that simply "using the same old sensor" is just an insult to their customers, and Canon knows that to compete, they have to COMPETE. The chances are low that Canon won't do something very compelling with the 7D II. I also think the chances are relatively low that they will eliminate the 7D line...it's been wildly popular and an exceptionally good seller...seems highly doubtful Canon would do away with such a success.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 28, 2013)

This thread is entirely too speculative to be a "roadmap", and entirely too argumentative about that speculation...

It's going to amuse me when this new camera turns out to not be everything you all hope it will be, at least regarding image quality (no doubt it will be blindingly fast with pro quality autofocus...which for many of you is all that counts). 

For instance, I highly doubt this new sensor will exceed (or even equal) the dynamic range of the existing 24 MP 1.5x sensor being used across the way. How could it? It's going to have smaller photosites, by definition, so each will get less photons. Do any of you really see a quantum leap in *crop sensor* performance coming soon from Canon? I don't. If they make big strides in sensor performance at all (and that's a big IF), it will go into the new full frame camera. Why else would the new rumor suddenly be going from 41 MP down to "approximately 35MP" ?? And this is full frame...NOT CROP. Keep in mind the photosites on the D800 are essentially the same size as their SIXTEEN megapixel 1.5x crop sensor in the old D7000, etc...which already has relatively huge photosites compared to the 70D...which itself, by your speculation, also has much larger photosites than the so-called "7D2", with its 24 MP crammed into the tiny 1.6x crop sensor area. 

I mean, if all you want are the tiniest photosites possible, you should just buy into a micro 4/3 system, and forget all about dynamic range.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 28, 2013)

well, for a 2014 announcement, the bare minimum in sensor performance Canon needs to deliver in a 7D successor is the Nikon D7100 ... 24 MP, no DPLF (AA-Filter), excellent IQ and very good DR - more than 1 step up from Canon's pre-historic 18 MP APS-C sensor! 

If Sony/Nikon can "cram that many pixels" onto a APS-C sensor and get excellent IQ from it, so should Canon. Crop 1.6x vs. 1.5x makes hardly a difference in real life. If Canon can't even achieve that much, they might as well pack up their entire APS-C business and call it quits. 

That's why I absolutely expect a 24MP (or maybe 26MP) sensor in the 7D II. Of course with dual pixel-AF, plus an (even) better phase-AF module. Slightly faster too ... 9 or 10 fps. WiFi, GPS built-in and also [finally!] a RT radio wireless flash controller. After all, the 7D was the first ever Canon EOS camera to include an [optical] wireless speedlite master controller. Plus a fully articulated, touchscreen LCD - which Canon has learned to make some time ago already (EOS 650D). Plus some video-optimized stuff, bingo! No really innovation needed. 

Price tag? USD/€ 2199,- ... in line with Canon's pricing decisions in its more recent history. ;-)


----------



## jrista (Dec 28, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> well, for a 2014 announcement, the bare minimum in sensor performance Canon needs to deliver in a 7D successor is the Nikon D7100 ... 24 MP, no DPLF (AA-Filter), excellent IQ and very good DR - more than 1 step up from Canon's pre-historic 18 MP APS-C sensor!
> 
> If Sony/Nikon can "cram that many pixels" onto a APS-C sensor and get excellent IQ from it, so should Canon. Crop 1.6x vs. 1.5x makes hardly a difference in real life. If Canon can't even achieve that much, they might as well pack up their entire APS-C business and call it quits.
> 
> ...



Two things in all that I most certainly hope they do NOT do. First is the articulated screen. HELL NO. For one, the articulated screen makes it much harder to weather seal the body, and weather sealing is VASTLY more important for the 7D line. Additionally, it is just another part to break. Either whatever sealing Canon manages to stuff into the joint will eventually wear out, nullifying any other weather sealing...or the whole damn screen could break off. Articulated screen + professional model? Nah, I don't see it happening, and if it did, that would forever end my use of the 7D line. 

As for the AA filter, at best, Canon should offer the option if there are really that many people who want it. I personally don't understand the trend towards more moire and worse aliasing...it's an odd trend. It is also largely a gimmick. An AA filter restores proper resolving power, eliminating nonsense data and massaging it into useful data. I don't really believe there are enough people who want AA-filter-less cameras that Canon would do this. Again, though, if they only offered a version without an AA filter, and none with, that too would probably end my use of the 7D line. I photograph birds...lack of an AA filter would decimate fine feather detail and leave it riddled with color moire, and there is no way to clean that up in post.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 28, 2013)

jrista said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > well, for a 2014 announcement, the bare minimum in sensor performance Canon needs to deliver in a 7D successor is the Nikon D7100 ... 24 MP, no DPLF (AA-Filter), excellent IQ and very good DR - more than 1 step up from Canon's pre-historic 18 MP APS-C sensor!
> ...


I agree 100 percent on the AA filter.

The articulated screen is slightly different logic, but I end up in the same place. I find the articulated screen to be a very useful feature and would not want to have a camera without one.... But the addition of WiFi and touchscreen interfaces takes things to the next level.... If you can have a phone or iPad that does the same things as the articulated screen, you end up with the possibility of a detached screen that is WAY more versatile than any articulated screen could be. For that reason, I think that the convenience of an articulated screen is less important on newer cameras than it was on previous models, and at least for me, having an articulated screen on a WiFi enabled camera is a non-issue.

We should be seeing more convergence between tablets/phones and DSLRs.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> For instance, I highly doubt this new sensor will exceed (or even equal) the dynamic range of the existing 24 MP 1.5x sensor being used across the way. How could it? It's going to have smaller photosites, by definition, so each will get less photons. Do any of you really see a quantum leap in *crop sensor* performance coming soon from Canon? I don't.



I'd be surprised if Canon's sensors don't move to back-side illumination pretty soon. It's a quantum leap for high-density sensors like the ones used in cell phones, but the benefit would be smaller in a sensor as big as APS-C unless the sensor's resolution were utterly insane. Either way, though, it should improve the SNR, and should compensate somewhat for the shrink in pixel size caused by a resolution increase, though I'm not sure exactly how much.


----------



## jrista (Dec 29, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Don't get me wrong, I totally understand the value of an articulating screen, and would love one. But, not at the sacrifice of device durability and weather sealing. Not for the price rance the 7D line generally lives in, anyway (a $800 or cheaper camera is a bit of a different deal...you break the screen, it isn't such a huge deal, nor as costly to fix.)

As you say, though, WiFi changes the game, and makes the whole articulated screen pointless and less capable than the potential alternatives.


----------



## jrista (Dec 29, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > For instance, I highly doubt this new sensor will exceed (or even equal) the dynamic range of the existing 24 MP 1.5x sensor being used across the way. How could it? It's going to have smaller photosites, by definition, so each will get less photons. Do any of you really see a quantum leap in *crop sensor* performance coming soon from Canon? I don't.
> ...



If Canon doesn't move to a 180nm process, moving to BSI on a 500nm process could actually result in fairly significant gains for an APS-C sized sensor. It is absolutely necessary for the tiny form factor sensors in phones and the like these days...hell, some of those sensors might almost be single PIXELs in a larger format sensor given how small they are.  BSI wouldn't be absolutely necessary for Canon's APS-C, but it would probably offer a greater benefit than for any manufacturers already using 180nm or 90nm processes. 

That said...moving to BSI requires a fairly hefty investment in fabs anyway...Canon might as well move to 180nm or a smaller process AND do BSI given the cost necessary to do either one.


----------



## gkaefer (Dec 31, 2013)

what about following (naive fallacy):

EOS 5D Mark II
Introduced November 2008

...41 months...

EOS 5D Mark III
Introduced March 2012

...41 months would be...

EOS 5D Mark IV
around August 2014 

???


----------



## Gorku (Dec 31, 2013)

gkaefer said:


> what about following (naive fallacy):
> 
> EOS 5D Mark II
> Introduced November 2008
> ...



no 41 months would be August 2015


----------



## gkaefer (Jan 1, 2014)

Gorku said:


> no 41 months would be August 2015



uups  my anticipation...
Georg


----------



## jrista (Jan 2, 2014)

gkaefer said:


> what about following (naive fallacy):
> 
> EOS 5D Mark II
> Introduced November 2008
> ...



You are a year early...August 2015. And I think that is a MAYBE. The 5D III is already extremely good. I think Aug. 2015 would be the earliest we might see an announcement for a 5D IV, but I really don't suspect one will actually hit the shelves until sometime 2016.


----------



## MovingViolations (Jan 4, 2014)

No matter how good the upgrade is internally and to the IQ and DR, Just please don't put it in "Plastic". And I strongly agree with the no articulating back. I'd use a second body when that is really needed. One thing I'd like to really see is just the 8-9 frames a second and bring back a new aps-h sensor with the 24 MP density of pixels with wi-fi like the 6D. Coming from the 1D MII world I love the aps-h sensor. I'm sorely disappointed in Canon's abandonment of the 1D/1Ds lines and merging them into a 1DX. After down loading and printing images from both Nikon's D800 and Canon's 1DX there is just no comparison. Canon shot themselves in the foot for landscape/city skylines. If Canon should bring out a new aps-h senosr in a 7D MII I'd be standing in line for one if DR and over all IQ at higher ISO setting is achieved. 24mp on an aps-h sensor should leap frog all of Nikon's aps-c 24mp senors for IQ. My 1D MII was ordered the day it was announced and I've never regretted it. Time has come for better and maybe in a lighter body. And above all keep the AA filter. Or make an additional 7D MIIx. I would like to see dual memory card slots as in the 1D series so that the images could be backed up.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 4, 2014)

MovingViolations said:


> No matter how good the upgrade is internally and to the IQ and DR, Just please don't put it in "Plastic". And I strongly agree with the no articulating back. I'd use a second body when that is really needed. One thing I'd like to really see is just the 8-9 frames a second and bring back a new aps-h sensor with the 24 MP density of pixels with wi-fi like the 6D. Coming from the 1D MII world I love the aps-h sensor. I'm sorely disappointed in Canon's abandonment of the 1D/1Ds lines and merging them into a 1DX. After down loading and printing images from both Nikon's D800 and Canon's 1DX there is just no comparison. Canon shot themselves in the foot for landscape/city skylines. If Canon should bring out a new aps-h senosr in a 7D MII I'd be standing in line for one if DR and over all IQ at higher ISO setting is achieved. 24mp on an aps-h sensor should leap frog all of Nikon's aps-c 24mp senors for IQ. My 1D MII was ordered the day it was announced and I've never regretted it. Time has come for better and maybe in a lighter body. And above all keep the AA filter. Or make an additional 7D MIIx. I would like to see dual memory card slots as in the 1D series so that the images could be backed up.


APS-h is not going to happen. It would not work with any of the APS-c lenses, so that means FF lenses only. You end up with a FF camera with a slightly smaller sensor.

The original reason for APS-h was poor yields and high cost with ff sensors.... A reason which has gone away as manufacturing processes have matured. An APS-h sensor might be five dollars cheaper to produce than FF....


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 11, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > For instance, I highly doubt this new sensor will exceed (or even equal) the dynamic range of the existing 24 MP 1.5x sensor being used across the way. How could it? It's going to have smaller photosites, by definition, so each will get less photons. Do any of you really see a quantum leap in *crop sensor* performance coming soon from Canon? I don't.
> ...



That would be nice.


----------

