# EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 27, 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/?p=14594"></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/?p=14594">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>EOS 7D Mark II in March?

</strong>A spec list has shown up for an EOS 7D Mark II with a possible announcement in March of 2014.</p>
<p>According to the rumor, the sensor is not yet confirmed, though it does mention it won’t be the same as the EOS 70D. Also a mention of innovative video features, something we’ve talked about previously. There’s not much new here as far as specs go, but at least the camera is being talked about.</p>
<ul>
<li>20MP or 24MP sensor with Dual Pixel CMOS AF</li>
<li>Auto-Focus system similar to the EOS 5D Mark III (61 points), possibly the same as 5D3</li>
<li>High frame rate, 10-12 fps</li>
<li>“high grade” weather sealing, like Canon’s professional DSLRs</li>
<li>Dual Digic V+ processor</li>
<li>Single card slot</li>
<li>WiFi & GPS</li>
<li>Innovative video features</li>
<li>Price around $2000</li>
<li>Very good ISO performance</li>
</ul>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-may-announced-march-2014/" target="_blank">CW</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Destin (Oct 27, 2013)

Digic V+? Pfft!


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

Good. Now release a 5D4 along with it with the same everything except sensor size, pixel density and frame rate.

I'll buy both together.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

By the way dual card slots would be helpful. I'd even tolerate both of them being SD to get that.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 27, 2013)

"Very good ISO performance"

Ahhh. Now I can rest easy


----------



## LuCoOc (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Good. Now release a 5D4 along with it with the same everything except sensor size, pixel density and frame rate.
> 
> I'll buy both together.



That camera is called EOS 1Dx.


AF system similar or the same as the 5D would mean it would cover the hole frame - simply awesome but I only believe it when I see that.


----------



## Zv (Oct 27, 2013)

Those are some mouthwaterin specs, if we'd had this about a year ago! 

Kidding, actually sounds badass. Dual digic 5+, new sensor with Dual AF, good ISO performance and some video tricks? Yes please! 

I think it's prob not gonna be 24MP as that would make it the highest MP body in the line up. So 20 but with a different sensor than the 70D? Hmmm that could be interesting. And I'm intrigued by this ISO claim too. 

About time we heard something relating to the mythical beast. 

;D


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

LuCoOc said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Good. Now release a 5D4 along with it with the same everything except sensor size, pixel density and frame rate.
> ...



No, the 1DX does have fast frame rates which I'm willing to give up and it has that awful 1 series body which I will never buy or even consider.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 27, 2013)

The spec list on expected lines. Given that it is a CR1, you can give or take a few as you are comfortable.

I'd buy one with these spec at 2K if the high ISO performance was around two stops better than the current 7D - maybe I'm asking for much.


----------



## pdirestajr (Oct 27, 2013)

10-12 FPS and only one card slot?! And how can they have wifi/ gps? I thought they told us that is why some plastics were needed in the 6d/ 70d...


----------



## candyman (Oct 27, 2013)

Given that this is a CR1, change of specs is likely


I would spent this amount of money on a 7D MKII with these specs.
I hope card slot will remain CF. Can we have another CF cardslot please? I guess that is only for the 1Dx
And, I will go for the 61-points AF, high grade weathersealing - just don't know how that goes with WiFi 
And I do like the 10-12 fps. The 6fps on my 5D MKIII is great but here and there short of 


And, most of all I like the better ISO performance. Yes, 2 stops improvement compared to the 7D would be great. However I suspect Canon may be conservative on this one.


----------



## setterguy (Oct 27, 2013)

Would really be great if offered in a FF! Dreaming!!


----------



## MichaelHodges (Oct 27, 2013)

Yes, I'm sure the IQ will take a big leap even if they pack 6 more MP onto that small 1.6x sensor....

I've always liked the *idea* of the 7D. Great body, nice features. 
okish images....when the focus is consistent.


----------



## traveller (Oct 27, 2013)

Is this simply a repost of yesterday's CW 7D MkII rumour, or has Craig heard anything independently? Am I the only person that's a touch suspicious about rumours of distant camera releases that amount to a list of desirable, yet plausible specifications? 

Scepticism aside, I wonder how Canon will be able to place a 7D MkII in its current product line? I find it surprising how many existing DSLR owners that I speak to (though obviously not those that frequent this forum!) believe that the 7D is full frame, presumably because all the other single-digit cameras are full frame. 

I can't help thinking that with declining sales across the board there are too many cameras and too little real innovation in most manufacturers' line-ups. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make the 7D MkII the last conventional DSLR (at least in the APS-C range) and move towards a future without mirrors. 

Oh, by the way Canon -it really is time to show the world some new generation sensor technology, or start outsourcing to a company that can!


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

traveller said:


> I can't help thinking that with declining sales across the board there are too many cameras and too little real innovation in most manufacturers' line-ups. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make the 7D MkII the last conventional DSLR (at least in the APS-C range) and move towards a future without mirrors.



Good grief. EVFs are years, if not decades away from being usable in high-speed and/or low-light situations, plus we need a good factor of 4 increase in battery performance before we go that way.


----------



## WPJ (Oct 27, 2013)

Well ill be in line for 2 of these beasts....keep the cf slot, make it dual, keep the same better as the 7d and the same grip, or at least update the grip it include better water seal, I'd love full on auto transfer of images to may has when within range of my know ssid's built in canon wireless flash controller and I'll upgrade my 580's to the 600's as well. Oh remote,view and full setting and remote WiFi trigger as well. On the WiFi it would be great to be able to sync two cameras so ever shot is in,complete sync.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Good grief. EVFs are years, if not decades away from being usable in high-speed and/or low-light situations, plus we need a good factor of 4 increase in battery performance before we go that way.



A bit of an overreaction? He didn't suggest building a space elevator.


----------



## SecundumArtemRx (Oct 27, 2013)

Nice features, but I wish someone could find the guy in the Canon board room who keeps recommending they dilute their flagship cameras with unnecessary video features.

To that same board member: Keep the 61 point autofocus and make this camera a wildlife and sports photographer's dream by maxing the sensor. I'd buy three to boost your profits!

Signed a humble guy who's been waiting for three years to upgrade camera bodies, due to lack of sensor innovation.


----------



## Pi (Oct 27, 2013)

brad-man said:


> "Very good ISO performance"
> 
> Ahhh. Now I can rest easy



Did they also say: "no more noisy blues skies at base ISO"?


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Good grief. EVFs are years, if not decades away from being usable in high-speed and/or low-light situations, plus we need a good factor of 4 increase in battery performance before we go that way.
> ...



Space elevators are at least possible. EVF as good as OVFs are not possible, ever.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

Pi said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > "Very good ISO performance"
> ...



There's noise in the light itself. It's impossible to have a noise-free image. With the capture of lots of light and the application of noise reduction in software, it's possible to have the appearance of noise-free images, but that's all.


----------



## Ruined (Oct 27, 2013)

Needs to have either joystick or touchscreen (or both), and preferably articulating screen for abnormal shots. Wifi would be nice too if it is fast.


----------



## iam2nd (Oct 27, 2013)

I've been saving to have a 1DX as a replacement/second body for my 1D Mark IV. But looking at the alleged 7D MKII specs, it matches or exceeds the 1DMKIV performance in many areas at a drastic price savings.

I am fully aware of the differences not only in performance but also in durability and usability between the Pro and pro-sumer line, but this body would give me options for my upgrade path. I am eagerly awaiting CR2 specs on this one.


----------



## roadrunner (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



At least you confirmed suspicions of an over reaction =/

Who knows what will be possible in the next decade or so. I'll agree that it's not going ot happen for a few more years, but there's no way of knowing what will be possible in 10+ years, especially with anything technology related.


----------



## transpo1 (Oct 27, 2013)

Innovative Video features that would be useful.

1. Official Canon RAW video DNG
2. Focus peaking
3. Zebras or False Color

+ everything video oriented the 5DIII has.

Those are the things that would make me buy this camera next year. Yes, I am a video-oriented shooter.


----------



## traveller (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I have to admit that I wasn't overly enamoured with the EVF on the A99 compared to the viewfinder on my 5D MkIII (though I only tried it indoors and it might perform better in natural light), but this doesn't alter the fact that they are probably the future for most cameras. EVFs have come on in leaps and bounds over the last few years and I see no reason why they will not in the next few. This is how I see the pros and cons of EVFs, in descending order of significance: 

EVF Pros: 

allow a simpler and cheaper camera design by eliminating expensive to assemble moving parts and removing the requirement for seperate AF and metering sensors
offer a larger and brighter image than most APS-C viewfinders
allow more freedom with lens design by allowing placement of rear elements further towards sensor
[*]allow more shooting information to be displayed, e.g. magnified focus, focus peaking, zebras & real-time histogram



EVF Cons: 

image lag
contrast range
resolution_
_
_


Of all these, the cost reason will be why manufacturers will eventually move to EVFs across their whole range, except maybe their flagship sports/action cameras. As the differences between the two become less relevant to a greater number of buyers, not to move to a mirrorless design would leave a manufacturer producing increasingly expensive niche cameras (Leica?). Whilst this may be a direction for another manufacturer, it won't work for the market leaders that base their success upon sales volume (i.e. currently Canon and Nikon)._


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

roadrunner said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelHodges said:
> ...



How are you going to be zero lag and zero power usage?


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

traveller said:


> EVF Pros:
> 
> allow a simpler and cheaper camera design by eliminating expensive to assemble moving parts and removing the requirement for seperate AF and metering sensors




EVFs are more expensive than OVFs, if the EVF is decent.


> offer a larger and brighter image than most APS-C viewfinders
> allow more freedom with lens design by allowing placement of rear elements further towards sensor




This isn't an advantage of an EVF, it's an advantage of removing the mirror box, and only if your entire lens system changes.


> allow more shooting information to be displayed, e.g. magnified focus, focus peaking, zebras & real-time histogram


I consider that a disadvantage, as it's distracting. I turn it all off on my EVF cameras. The only advantage is for manual focus situations.


> [/list]
> 
> EVF Cons:
> 
> ...



_
Zero power draw as well._
_



Of all these, the cost reason will be why manufacturers will eventually move to EVFs across their whole range, except maybe their flagship sports/action cameras.

Click to expand...


Since that's an invalid reason, I don't see why they'd bother to make everything else worse.

I'd like a hybrid EVF/OVF using the EVF for video and manual focus situations only._


----------



## MichaelHodges (Oct 27, 2013)

Pi said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > "Very good ISO performance"
> ...



The noise in the 7D reminds me of the classic Panasonic all-in-one super zooms. But yeah, terrible blue channel noise at ISO 100. I'd much rather see them focus on low ISO dynamic range and noise than ISO 64000 jpeg noise. Any addition of megapixels to the 1.6x sensor means I won't be picking one up. 18 is already too many.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



Logical fallacy.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



Huh?

SNR = sqrt (photons collected). To make SNR infinity you have to make photons collected infinity.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> The noise in the 7D reminds me of the classic Panasonic all-in-one super zooms. But yeah, terrible blue channel noise at ISO 100. I'd much rather see them focus on low ISO dynamic range and noise than ISO 64000 jpeg noise. Any addition of megapixels to the 1.6x sensor means I won't be picking one up. 18 is already too many.



Why? More pixels = less noise and more detail.


----------



## Botts (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > The noise in the 7D reminds me of the classic Panasonic all-in-one super zooms. But yeah, terrible blue channel noise at ISO 100. I'd much rather see them focus on low ISO dynamic range and noise than ISO 64000 jpeg noise. Any addition of megapixels to the 1.6x sensor means I won't be picking one up. 18 is already too many.
> ...



There is a school of thought, somewhat based in science, that bigger pixels equal less noise and/or higher sensitivity.

There are engineering realities which can nullify, mitigate, or amplify the above however.


----------



## Pi (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



Of course, there is noise in the image as well but you know well what I meant. The blue channel of the 7D is much noisier than the signal itself, and much noisier than on any Nikon.

If you have to be picky, there is no such thing as a noise-free image of the physical object but there is such thing (theoretically) as noise free way to capture what hits the sensor, at least photosite by photosite; and then there is no theoretical and possibly a practical limit how close you can get.


----------



## Pi (Oct 27, 2013)

Botts said:


> There is a school of thought, somewhat based in science, that bigger pixels equal less noise and/or higher sensitivity.


Did you mean to post this to this thread: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17775.msg328453#msg328453?


----------



## MichaelHodges (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



You dismissed his concern about the 7D's noise with a logical fallacy.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

Botts said:


> There is a school of thought, somewhat based in science, that bigger pixels equal less noise and/or higher sensitivity.



That school of thought it wrong in all but exceptionally photon-starved situations (ISOs in the 6 and 7 digits).


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelHodges said:
> ...



The 7D's sky noise is present in every camera of every size to varying degrees.


----------



## Pi (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> The 7D's sky noise is present in every camera of every size to varying degrees.



Those degrees vary quite a lot from camera to camera, which was the point of my remark, and I am sure that you know that.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Let's just cut the logical fallacies and address the poster's 7D noise concerns. Personally, as a 7D owner, I agree with him that the noise in blue skies at low ISO is unacceptable for a DSLR in this range. The only true upgrade path at this time to remedy such issues seems to be full frame.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

Pi said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The 7D's sky noise is present in every camera of every size to varying degrees.
> ...



I have a T2i (basically the same sensor as the 7D) and I don't find the sky noise to be a problem compared to other cameras I have including my 5D.


----------



## WPJ (Oct 27, 2013)

What I wonder as on sensors is this new Nokia 1020 phone camera, its 41mp. And the sensor size is small I can't find out how small. I wonder on how good it is my guess it's about 1/8th the size of an aps-c if it was a amazing sensor and they made it aps-c size it would be like 328mp..wowzers...only if.


----------



## traveller (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> EVFs are more expensive than OVFs, if the EVF is decent.



I have to disagree with you here, it's not just the cost of the pentaprism, you have to factor in the whole mirror mechanism as well as the seperate af senor and its submirror and the light meter; none of these are required for mirrorless/EVF designs. 



Lee Jay said:


> (lens design freedom) This isn't an advantage of an EVF, it's an advantage of removing the mirror box, and only if your entire lens system changes.



As I stated previously, using an EVF allows you to remove the mirror, which in turn allows lens designers to use this space for lens elements, especially when the EF mount is used for a crop frame sensor -there is no need to remove the mirror box entirely. Early ultra wide angle SLR lenses require the use of mirror lock-up and external finders. 



Lee Jay said:


> (shooting information, electronic focusing aids) I consider that a disadvantage, as it's distracting. I turn it all off on my EVF cameras. The only advantage is for manual focus situations.



Others might find the information useful, you're not their only customer, and as you state, you can turn it off. I find manually focussing fast lenses difficult with modern viewfinders and autofocus isn't always reliable at large apertures (and changing focussing screens is a PITA). 



Lee Jay said:


> Zero power draw (is a "Con") as well.



Fair comment, but I don't think it's a deal breaker. Battery technology moves on. 



Lee Jay said:


> Since (cheaper to produce) is an invalid reason, I don't see why they'd bother to make everything else worse.



So cheaper to produce to isn't a valid reason? For a mass market producer, I would say it was the most valid of reasons. I'm not saying that there will not be a market for traditional DSLR technology, just that the mass market will no longer be willing to pay the price premium.


----------



## jbooba (Oct 27, 2013)

"Innovative video features"

lol yeah maybe 2 years later with ML hacks.

unless its 4K its DOA.

JB


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



yeah.. but you are not shooting for NatGeo.....


----------



## MichaelHodges (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Shoot an actual blue sky, the kind you get in Montana or Wyoming (not the pollution-choked skies over big cities or suburbs), and get back to me.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

jbooba said:


> "Innovative video features"
> 
> lol yeah maybe 2 years later with ML hacks.
> 
> ...



how many people will have 4k able displays in 2 years?

4k is just another marketing gimmick to pull money from the noobs.
in my opinion you need a 60+ inch display or 4k is useless.

or maybe it is just me?
but from normal viewing distance i would hardly see a difference on a 46 inch display.
i have tested this in our local high end hifi/tv store.


nice read:

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57491766-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid-still/


----------



## hpaton (Oct 27, 2013)

I am glad to hear that Canon may pro-grade weather-seal the 7D II. What I am looking for basically would be like a 1D X body except with a APS-C sensor -- I would love it if they would build in the vertical grip rather than making us buy an attachment. If Canon offered a pro-body with a 1.6x sensor as well as the full framer, that would be ideal. I like having both a 1.6 and full frame when shooting sports but the 7D isn't rugged enough. I do love my 7D, but I can't believe it's 4 years old already. I wish Canon would go a little faster.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



I live at high altitude (6000 feet) in Colorado where we get really, really blue skies.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> jbooba said:
> 
> 
> > "Innovative video features"
> ...



Ever seen a 4k display? A 30 inch on your desk is shocking in its detail.


----------



## ITshooter (Oct 27, 2013)

jbooba said:


> "Innovative video features"
> 
> lol yeah maybe 2 years later with ML hacks.
> 
> ...



Maybe. But if it's a pro-oriented camera, I think decent codecs would go farther than some kind of ultra-compressed 4K. If you acquire in 4K with the intent of downsizing to 1080p, you can get some of the advantages a better 1080p codec might have provided, even if the 4K source file isn't ideally compressed-- but you can't fully compensate for the real deal.

Rumors a while back talked about 60fps RAW bursts, which would be "innovative" in a Canon body, and would serve, within limitations, to offer both a 4K+ spec and a RAW video spec, with some slow-motion applications adding to the appeal. That sounds intriguing, but I think both Panasonic and Sony are going to continue to up the ante in the $2000-$5000 range, so hopefully there's more.

If the Cinema EOS line is upgraded at some point in early 2014, that opens the door for a 7D Mark II with relatively fewer artificially crippled functions. The C500 mk ii will probably remain Canon's only RAW option for real 4K and slow-motion recording, but the C300 follow-up could get 4K with a good codec to CF cards, and more frame rate options; and the C100 successor might get 4K with a lesser codec, or maybe 2K output with the original C300's broadcast-ready codec, and 4K available to an external recorder. All of that seems reasonable. It's conservative enough to fit Canon's attitude but aggressive enough to remain broadly competitive with more spec-rich options from RED, Sony and even Black Magic. 

That might open up the 7D Mark II to real 1080p recording-- e.g. sample the whole sensor, put it in a 10-bit codec, etc. That would leave 4K to the Cinema cams but provide a C300-level HD image on a DSLR-- something Canon doesn't come close to providing now in the regular pro DSLRS, and that it only comes sort of close to even with the 1D-C. If it included a 60fps RAW burst, 1080p with a great codec and sampling, 1D-series frame rate and AF and a great build... I'd probably pay $2500 even if the still quality is only on par with Canon's other APS-C sensors. If it's actually a stop better, I'd be pumped. Granted, I'm someone who shoots both stills and video, so my video zeal is surely swaying my enthusiasm.


----------



## RGF (Oct 27, 2013)

hpaton said:


> I am glad to hear that Canon may pro-grade weather-seal the 7D II. What I am looking for basically would be like a 1D X body except with a APS-C sensor -- I would love it if they would build in the vertical grip rather than making us buy an attachment. If Canon offered a pro-body with a 1.6x sensor as well as the full framer, that would be ideal. I like having both a 1.6 and full frame when shooting sports but the 7D isn't rugged enough. I do love my 7D, but I can't believe it's 4 years old already. I wish Canon would go a little faster.



+10. Mini 1Dx would be ideal. It is frustrating to back and forth between 2 camera bodies with different controls.

The APS-H (1.3 crop) was an excellent compromise between added reach and reduced sensor size (noise). Too bad they killed that line


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Lichtgestalt said:
> 
> 
> > jbooba said:
> ...



did you read my posting before making that lame comment? 
i guess not.



> A 30 inch on your desk is shocking in its detail.



oh so you are filming for your PC monitor... that does not have 4k resolution either.

and i thought most of these high-end, high-res videos will be watched on TV. 

but yes when i, one day, have the bandwith i may enjoy 4k youtube files on my 30 inch 4096×2304 pixel monitor... from 50 cm away. 
if... NEC or EIZO will make a 4k 30 inch monitor that doesn´t cost 8000 euro. ;D

still.. 4k will be useless for the majority. 
in the link i posted the author describes why.. better then i could with my broken english.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

I was referring to a 4k Enso we have at work.

1080p is really poor resolution. Would you create an 18x12 print from a highly compressed 2MP source and be happy viewing it from 20 inches away?


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 27, 2013)

Several things in the rumoured spec list don't look right to me, leading me to suspect it's guesswork again.


20MP or 24MP sensor with Dual Pixel CMOS AF
I can believe either of these possibilities.


Auto-Focus system similar to the EOS 5D Mark III (61 points), possibly the same as 5D3
It obviously won't get the 5D3's FF-oriented system, and I doubt Canon feels any need to give an APS-C body 61 AF points.


High frame rate, 10-12 fps
 The source clearly doesn't know if it's 10 or 12, so giving a spread of 10-12fps makes it harder to challenge.


“High grade” weather sealing, like Canon’s professional DSLRs
Another vague spec that can't easily be challenged.


Dual Digic V+ processor
Seems plausible.


Single card slot
To me, this was a misjudgement by Canon on the 7D. Will they really do it again?


WiFi & GPS
Plausible but Canon can't compromise on the full mag alloy body so they'll have to find a new signal solution - maybe pass an antenna through a small (sealed) hole in the body and embed it in the plastic flash housing (assuming the 7D2 gets a built-in flash).


Innovative video features
Plausible.


Price around $2000
Seems optimistic to me.


Very good ISO performance
Compared with what? Another vague, therefore unchallengeable, statement.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 27, 2013)

brad-man said:


> "Very good ISO performance" Ahhh. Now I can rest easy



*snigger* this reminds me of the "new and enhanced sensor" of the 6d - which turned out to be about the same as the 5d3. Unless there are some hard facts about what's new about this sensor, I'd say this is marketing gibberish and the current ff generation will keep being about 2 iso stops above crop.



AdamJ said:


> Innovative video features - Plausible.



Indeed - looking at the Canon innovations since the 5d2 it's very hard *not* to be innovative, beyond the dual pixel af that is - maybe they've Magic Lantern installed and got some new ideas  ... 

... or the innovation is no moire and a fast sd/cf card slot, then mail the specs to the ML team and let them code the raw shooting and all other video related features


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> I was referring to a 4k Enso we have at work.



you mean eizo?
if im not wrong that is a 36 inch for ~23000 euro.

well i guess 4k is a must have then. 

still.... "DOA if not 4K" seems bit like a stretch to me. 




> 1080p is really poor resolution. Would you create an 18x12 print from a highly compressed 2MP source and be happy viewing it from 20 inches away?



if you shot 4k video because you want to make prints later you are still a minority i guess.

not many households with 4k TV´s, expensive PC monitors, the performance you need for editing, storage space.
nah.. i don´t see a bright future for 4k outside circles who can make real use of it.

geeks will still love it, sure.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I was referring to a 4k Enso we have at work.
> ...


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Oct 27, 2013)

Looks more like an early April Fool!


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> I don't want to get stills from video but I also don't know why I should accept poorer frames for video than I do for stills.



because the additional quality is wasted anyway?
you have no TV or monitor at home that can display all the glory, right?

even with a 50inch 4k display you will hardly see a difference from normal viewing distances.
the human eye is not able to resolve that good.

but you will have to store the files and editing will need more resources.


----------



## WPJ (Oct 27, 2013)

How many MP is 4k?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> LuCoOc said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I don't get all this hate on 1 series body style, with so many grips sold and so many using grips - I don't get it, why wouldn't you want a second set of controls for portrait orientation shooting????????


----------



## Pi (Oct 27, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> even with a 50inch 4k display you will hardly see a difference from normal viewing distances.
> the human eye is not able to resolve that good.



This must be a joke. I use a 3.7mp 27'' inch display every day, sitting next to an 23" 2mp one. The difference is night and day.


----------



## Pi (Oct 27, 2013)

WPJ said:


> How many MP is 4k?



About 8mp.


----------



## WPJ (Oct 27, 2013)

Just calculated that wow 8mp display. Only if tv would catch up to laptop display resolutions we could then really take advantage of the high end MP camera...

there is already so many pixels combined and compressed to get it on a display now...

look at the new Microsoft surface 1920x1080 or 2mp in 10 in screen convert that to to my 55" screen I would have 10,560x 5940 or about 62MP screen at 55", now that would be a screen instead of the minor 4k update everyone's worried about.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > No, the 1DX does have fast frame rates which I'm willing to give up and it has that awful 1 series body which I will never buy or even consider.
> ...



It's heavy, too big, doesn't fit in my waist bag, and it useless to me on 99.9% of my shots. I have shot 150,000 shots on cameras without grips and have never even shopped around for a grip for them. Every time I shoot on someone else's gripped camera I find it uncomfortable, and every time I've use a 1 series I've found them next to impossible to use at all. I have little hands and can't even touch the shutter release with my hand positioned properly on the grip.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



an average sized hand should fit a 1 series body fine, or any other body with a grip. You have smaller than average hands, so, unless you get a custom design body, then your stuck with camera bodies designed for average sized hands. 

If the grip is too big, how do you even hold a non gripped 5d, or a 7d? Sounds like you need a much smaller body in general...


either way, the point is, your also asking for 1d specs in a much smaller cheaper body, just not happening....if the grip is too big for you, then so will this new 7d....

and PS...not attacking you directly, your like the sixth person I have seen on here hating on the built in grip...


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 27, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...


I figure it's whatever works for you... I have large hands, a 1DX fits my hands beautifully, a 1DX is very nice to hold in portrait mode... I find the larger bodies easier to hold steady than smaller bodies. It also seems to be as solid as a hammer with great weather-sealing. However, a 1DX is a lot heavier to take on a hike and it needs a huge pelican case to take on canoe trips, .... Given the choice between a 1DX and a 7DII, most of the time outside I would be carrying the 7DII... It's not a hate of the 1DX, it's just that the form factor does not meet my needs. If I were a studio photographer I would be saying the opposite.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 27, 2013)

Pi said:


> Lichtgestalt said:
> 
> 
> > even with a 50inch 4k display you will hardly see a difference from normal viewing distances.
> ...


+1 I also have a 3.7mp 27" display and a 24" 2mp display on my desktop.... and all the "real work" is done on the 27" display because the images are so much better and I have much greater detail. Across the lab there is a 4K display and the detail on it is even better.... I wish I had it on my desk.... 1920x1080 is now a low-res monitor.....


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> If the grip is too big, how do you even hold a non gripped 5d, or a 7d? Sounds like you need a much smaller body in general...



My 5D fits my hand like it was made for me. My 20D is just a tiny bit too small but still comfortable. My T2i is way too small and horribly uncomfortable to use for any length of time.




> either way, the point is, your also asking for 1d specs in a much smaller cheaper body, just not happening....if the grip is too big for you, then so will this new 7d....



I am not. I'm not asking for the built in grip, the weather sealing, or the high frame rate of the 1Dx. I'm asking for a 5D4 with the same basic sensor technology and features of the rumor. The 5D3 is almost there except for the sensor.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 27, 2013)

WPJ said:


> How many MP is 4k?



2K video is 1920x1080
4K video is 3840x2160
8K video is 7680x4320

When I first saw 4K video (about 4 years ago) the quality of it just blew me away... even though we had to display it on a 2x2 matrix of monitors... 8K video is even better, you even have sharp detail right up close to the displays... but at this point we seem to be hitting the law of diminishing returns. Personally I would say 4K video is twice as good as 2K, but there is no way I would say 8K video is twice as good as 4K.... 4K seems to be the sweet spot...

Affordable cameras with 4K video? Keep in mind that a GoPro shoots 4K video at 15fps and stores it on a micro-sd card.... I wonder what a pair of Digic5+ can do....


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 27, 2013)

AdamJ said:


> WiFi & GPS
> Plausible but Canon can't compromise on the full mag alloy body so they'll have to find a new signal solution - maybe pass an antenna through a small (sealed) hole in the body and embed it in the plastic flash housing (assuming the 7D2 gets a built-in flash).



It's easy to get the antenna out of a "full mag alloy" body... look at a picture of one, they are so full of holes and openings that it puts a swiss cheese to shame... it's all the stuff outside the metal body that provides the weather sealing...

Plastics and composites are not always a bad thing. You can have plastics that outperform metals for many uses, particularly when it comes to temperature stability. That's what we use in a lot of the portable satcom dishes and there are a lot of carbon-fibre dishes up in orbit....

as to built in flash.... I hope not... they are so weak as to be useless and if you use a large lens you get shadows...


----------



## pwp (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> LuCoOc said:
> 
> 
> > That camera is called EOS 1Dx.
> ...


..."_that awful 1-series body"_...are you serious? You're sounding a little like someone who has never worked with a 1-Series EOS body. 

If you work with cameras on a daily basis, settling for anything less than a 1-Series body can feel like a compromise, especially in a dynamic shooting situation. Mind you, I'm not saying that non-1-Series bodies are flawed, it's just that the 1-Series is so far out in front it's not funny. You definitely get what you pay for. 

edit: FWIW a gripped 5D3 is taller, thicker and slightly heavier than my 1D4

-pw


----------



## pwp (Oct 27, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Good grief. EVFs are years, if not decades away from being usable in high-speed and/or low-light situations, plus we need a good factor of 4 increase in battery performance before we go that way.
> ...


I'd welcome classy EVF. We're probably not there yet, but it's getting better with just about every new release. Look at the latest Olympus OM-D. Sooner than you might imagine, we'll look back at the dark old days where we had to struggle along with those crumby old optical viewfinders. I can't wait.

-pw


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

pwp said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > LuCoOc said:
> ...



Shooting with a 1Diii for 30 seconds made me want to drop the thing into a mine shaft. I feel the same about my T2i after 5 minutes but have no trouble with my 5D or 20D after 12 hours.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > If the grip is too big, how do you even hold a non gripped 5d, or a 7d? Sounds like you need a much smaller body in general...
> ...




This is pure speculation though...this is a rumor of a spec list, nothing confirmed....but you somehow feel that this sensor will be that much better than the mk3's? It's still an APS-C, so even if it's the very best APS-C sensor ever made the look and feel of a FF sensor may still win. Either way, I can't accept this as a rational statement because as far as any of us are concerned this sensor does not exist! Come back to me with this statement in a year when we at least start seeing some test images and other data. This is a CR1 rumor for crying out loud.

And, personal preference.... I don't want the 5d4 to be that at all....leave the sports line to the 7d and the 1dx, for the 5d4 I like what the current 5d3 has to offer...keep the frame rate the same, up the MP's, 2 CF card slots, improved low ISO performance, and yeah, a bit better low light (not that what is currently there is bad at all)...


----------



## pwp (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Shooting with a 1Diii for 30 seconds made me want to drop the thing into a mine shaft. I feel the same about my T2i after 5 minutes but have no trouble with my 5D or 20D after 12 hours.


You gave it a whole thirty seconds? Well that's certainly plenty long enough to get to know the 1D3 intimately.
Look, they may not work for you and that's perfectly fine, but yours isn't the sole valid viewpoint on the planet in regards to 1-Series bodies. 

-pw


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



You don't need zero lag, you just need less lag than the user can perceive. I am told that people can not notice less than 20 milliseconds of lag... Olympus is now at 29ms with the OM-D EM-1... still not there but getting very close... I can't notice the delay on static objects but if I look hard and concentrate I can see it when I pan. ( I have not tried the OM-D EM-1.... that's with a PEN and the OV-4, allegedly the same viewfinder the OM-D EM-5 uses)

Also, an optical viewfinder is not zero lag, it is between 1.5 and 2 nanoseconds, depending on your camera 

Zero power usage is a bit misleading too... the question should be how does the power usage of the EVF compare to the power usage of the shutter/mirror motors.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> This is pure speculation though...this is a rumor of a spec list, nothing confirmed....but you somehow feel that this sensor will be that much better than the mk3's?



Why is "dual pixel" speculation?


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > This is pure speculation though...this is a rumor of a spec list, nothing confirmed....but you somehow feel that this sensor will be that much better than the mk3's?
> ...


Because it might be quad


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> You don't need zero lag, you just need less lag than the user can perceive.



Nope. This is a myth. Any lag, at all, reduces closed-loop tracking bandwidth and therefore makes it harder to track subjects. I tried a difficult tracking situation with a camera with 25ms of lag and it was entirely impossible, while I did it pretty easily with an SLR.



> Zero power usage is a bit misleading too... the question should be how does the power usage of the EVF compare to the power usage of the shutter/mirror motors.



The mirror takes no power at all for viewfinder use. I often use the viewfinder for hours and hours, taking only 1000-2000 shots during that time. An EVF will generally deplete the battery in an hour of viewfinder use or so, even if you take no pictures.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

> The mirror takes no power at all for viewfinder use. I often use the viewfinder for hours and hours, taking only 1000-2000 shots during that time. An EVF will generally deplete the battery in an hour of viewfinder use or so, even if you take no pictures.



that´s a good point.
i also look through the viewfinder for hours, with some breaks to relax my eyes, when doing wildlife shots.

even when the camera has a sensor that only activates the EVF when your eye is near the EVF it would not help much in such a case.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 28, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > This is pure speculation though...this is a rumor of a spec list, nothing confirmed....but you somehow feel that this sensor will be that much better than the mk3's?
> ...



the speculation part wasn't referring to dual pixel specifially...it was more in general that this is a cr1 rumor, so it can only be viewed as speculation.


----------



## mkabi (Oct 28, 2013)

You can't compare 4K video to 5K stills produced by cameras like the 1DX.

8Mb... Please.... thats so one dimensional for you to think of it that way.
8Mb is a single frame. Movie quality is 24 frames per second.

Thats...192Mb per second
11.52Gb per minute
692.2Gb per hour

You want slow-motion? 60 fps or more.
Imagine if the RED can output 300fps at 4K...


----------



## traveller (Oct 28, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > You don't need zero lag, you just need less lag than the user can perceive.
> ...



How do video photographers cope with shooting action? 

Let me guess, you own vinyl, right?


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 28, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > You don't need zero lag, you just need less lag than the user can perceive.
> ...



You must have a bugger of a time dealing with the delay in optical viewfinders caused buy the photons moving at only the speed of light.....

What I said is that the delay just has to be less than the user can perceive.... I am told the number is 20 milliseconds, even if we said it is 1 millisecond, all you have to be is faster than that.

The human body is incredibly slow at processing information.... our nerves conduct signals slowly.... our brains, although massively parallel, calculate slowly. Going faster than a human can perceive is a trivial task....


----------



## mkabi (Oct 28, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> WPJ said:
> 
> 
> > How many MP is 4k?
> ...



lol... you will know why I laughed in a minute.
yes... the gopro shoots 4K @ 15fps...

But! the 1DX can shoot 5K @ 12fps and its RAW baby!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 28, 2013)

traveller said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Do not compare apples to pineapples... 8) A video frame frozen has much lower detailing than a JPEG photo with the same resolution. Try to capture a frame of video FULL HD and print on photo paper, and will see a 1 megapixel JPEG image will be waaaay better though with half the amount of pixel.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 28, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> > The mirror takes no power at all for viewfinder use. I often use the viewfinder for hours and hours, taking only 1000-2000 shots during that time. An EVF will generally deplete the battery in an hour of viewfinder use or so, even if you take no pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Every time a mirror moves or a shutter moves, it takes energy. You have to compare the total energy used..... you can not just look at energy use under certain conditions.... that would be like me saying that an EVF uses less energy because when you take a picture, for that 1/100th of a second the mirror and shutter use a thousand times more energy...

One has a pattern of constant drain at a slow rate, the other has a pattern of heavy drain for very short and infrequent intervals. The question of which is worse in total depends on the usage pattern. If you are firing pictures off quickly the mirror/shutter will be the least efficient but if you are taking time it will be the most efficient. I think that in general the mirror/shutter will be the most efficient, but the answer is not an absolute.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 28, 2013)

traveller said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Loose framing.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 28, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> What I said is that the delay just has to be less than the user can perceive....



And what I said is that that is false. And it is.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 28, 2013)

mkabi said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > WPJ said:
> ...



I'm laughing too.... the GoPro video is HEAVILY! compressed.... I wonder what a pair of Digic5+ can do, particularly to a fast storage card...


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 28, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > What I said is that the delay just has to be less than the user can perceive....
> ...



Can you perceive zero?


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 28, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Your perception and your reaction time are both irrelevant to the topic of tracking.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 28, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



As someone who deals with tracking satellites from violently pitching and vibrating platforms, let me say that reaction time and perception are everything....


----------



## steliosk (Oct 28, 2013)

20MP or 24MP sensor with Dual Pixel CMOS AF
- borrowed from 70D

Auto-Focus system similar to the EOS 5D Mark III (61 points), possibly the same as 5D3
- borrowed from 5D3

Single card slot
- LOL

WiFi & GPS
- borrowed from 6D

Innovative video features
- probably filters and effects borrowed from 700D

Price around $2000
- at least

Very good ISO performance
- compared to 7D but same with 70D


typical canon
nothing new
they didn't either bother to put a dual slot in the camera.


hope to prove i'm wrong.. i'd be glad if i'm wrong.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 28, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> As someone who deals with tracking satellites from violently pitching and vibrating platforms, let me say that reaction time and perception are everything....



You're equating control bandwidth and input latency with human reaction time. They are totally different.

Human reaction time is around 200ms. So how is it possible to, say, hit a golf ball when you need to make dozens of adjustments during a swing that lasts only about twice that long?


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 28, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > As someone who deals with tracking satellites from violently pitching and vibrating platforms, let me say that reaction time and perception are everything....
> ...



But I am smart enough to know when a discussion is pointless.... goodnight!


----------



## Woody (Oct 28, 2013)

steliosk said:


> Price around $2000
> - at least
> 
> typical canon
> ...



+1

Highly disappointing if this is true. The price tag is too high, given the plunging interests in digital cameras these days.

We'll see how the mythical Nikon D400 stacks up. I am willing to bet it'll have some breathtaking technologies. Let's wait for 2014.


----------



## x-vision (Oct 28, 2013)

traveller said:


> Scepticism aside, I wonder how Canon will be able to place a 7D MkII in its current product line?



+1

With FF cameras now selling for $1700-2000, I just don't see Canon coming up with a 7DII.
There's just no place in the lineup for it.


----------



## jrbdmb (Oct 28, 2013)

"Very good ISO performance"

Which just means they cranked up the JPG noise reduction again. 
Now when they start talking about real improvements in RAW ISO performance, then I'll listen.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 28, 2013)

jrbdmb said:


> "Very good ISO performance"
> 
> Which just means they cranked up the JPG noise reduction again.
> Now when they start talking about real improvements in RAW ISO performance, then I'll listen.



Do you really think a low pixel density mediocre focusing low frame rate 6D competes against a high pixel density very high-end focusing fast frame rate camera? I sure don't. I have both kinds of cameras and I generally use them for entirely different situations. That's why I want both.


----------



## gmrza (Oct 28, 2013)

Destin said:


> Digic V+? Pfft!



What I wonder is why Canon would use a dual DIGIC V+ when the DIGIC VI is already out? - That said, I don't know how much on an advance on the DIGIC V the DIGIC VI is.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 28, 2013)

x-vision said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Scepticism aside, I wonder how Canon will be able to place a 7D MkII in its current product line?
> ...




it has a place....because none of the FF options have anywhere near the fps the 7d2 will have. the 7d2 is not for me by any means, but, it will be for a lot of people (sports, wildlife, etc, etc)


----------



## lopicma (Oct 28, 2013)

I hope the single memory card slot is just a prototype version... I was looking at the new Pentax K3, and it's as good as the 7D MkI with dual card slots. I am glad Canon is putting GPS into the new 7D. For photographing wildlife, it's a great to know where as well as when you took the shot of some critter.

As for the rest of the feature, it's a along time coming, and I hope Canon keeps the 7D on par with the 5D and 1D series in future versions.


----------



## mkabi (Oct 28, 2013)

Yeah, I don't know... why would they create something that would be equal to or better than the 5D mark iii and/or 1DX _*and*_ price it lower than those 2?

Defeats the purpose...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 28, 2013)

WPJ said:


> Just calculated that wow 8mp display. Only if tv would catch up to laptop display resolutions we could then really take advantage of the high end MP camera...
> 
> there is already so many pixels combined and compressed to get it on a display now...
> 
> look at the new Microsoft surface 1920x1080 or 2mp in 10 in screen convert that to to my 55" screen I would have 10,560x 5940 or about 62MP screen at 55", now that would be a screen instead of the minor 4k update everyone's worried about.



I can't wait until they bump monitor res way up.
And go oled for super deep blacks and 10bits to make up for needing more tones for such high DR displays.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 28, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> jbooba said:
> 
> 
> > "Innovative video features"
> ...



just you

come on even on a 10" ipad regular vs 'retina' makes all the difference in the world, when I look at 2k on my 24" it looks hideously block after using my retina ipad for a while and it sure as heck shows hideously less detail than a 24" print!! Seriously did you ever hear anyone say that there is no point printing unless you print 60" or larger because you won't see the extra detail anyway? no? well the same should apply to displays.

the whole nonsene about needing huge screens to see 4k is old wives tale garbage, some of the same people said the exact same thing about 1080P!

oh and ever notice how crappy video games look if you turn off AA even if you are running 2k at 24"? yeah that is because 2k is freaking LOW res even on a 24" screen never mind a 48 or 60". Does a 2k 55" screen seem like looking out a window or watching a sporting event in the stands? no? yeah because 2k is LOW res for that size.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 28, 2013)

ITshooter said:


> jbooba said:
> 
> 
> > "Innovative video features"
> ...



5D3 ML RAW video sets a high bar, they can't hold back on the next DSLR and play more silly internal market segmentation games otherwise they will get eaten up by the outside market


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 28, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Lichtgestalt said:
> ...



that cnet guy has no clue
it's not like they are true experts, the real experts are actual engineers/scientists/etc.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 28, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> I was referring to a 4k Enso we have at work.
> 
> 1080p is really poor resolution. Would you create an 18x12 print from a highly compressed 2MP source and be happy viewing it from 20 inches away?



Exactly, it's so funny that 90% of the crowd going on about how you need lie a 75" screen to even see 1080p nevermind 4k then turn around and laugh at people who view images on monitors and say that you need to print and then most print on 19"-24" printers! Umm what? It doesn't compute. So 1080p is already far too much overkill for a 24"-30" monitor because 1080p is a 'waste' below 55" and yet don't dare ever view images on a monitor because they are not crisp like a good 19" print LOL! At least pick one story and stick to it.


----------



## renegade54 (Oct 28, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > traveller said:
> ...



Correct me if I'm wrong Chuck, but don't you mean to add....."it has a place....because none of the FF options have anywhere near the fps the 7d2 will have..._in this price range_"? 

As far as x-vision and Traveller's comments go, I think the success of the 7d says all one needs to know about it's place in the Canon lineup. The 7d has developed a huge following and the 70d is nothing less than a gateway camera into the 7d. All those folks that dropped $1100 on the 70d will no doubt lust after the 7d2, as I am sure Canon hopes. The only worry I have is that no camera could possibly live up to this much hype; even if the hype is driven by the market as opposed to the company. Canon has to acknowledge the expectations it is placing on itself regarding the 7d2 with the 7d passing 4 years of service. While my expectations are certainly high for the 7d2 I do not think it will disappoint me; but I am not expecting a mini 1DX, as some folks do either.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Oct 28, 2013)

Yup. As mentioned before. A mini-1DX.

While I think the specs are totally doable, I certainly don't think the price is. Except for the crop-sensor, it's as good if not better than a 1DX. I think IQ is SO GOOD on crop sensors these days, the absolute need for FF is becoming less and less. I think they would leave out the 2nd slot. Because that's a 'Pro' feature.

It would cost AT LEAST $3k. Even at that price, it would be a HOT seller. Especially for the action-oriented.

I think it would eat SOME of the 1DX market, but not much. They'd lose some sales on the top, but more than make up for it at the bottom. In the end, they'd make more sales and profit. After all, Rebels is where Canon makes the big money on DSLR sales. That's why they come out with a new Rebel every year...

March would be a good time. I would expect their big MP camera to arrive shortly thereafter. It's going to be an awesome 2014 for Canon


----------



## M.ST (Oct 28, 2013)

The 7D is now in the actual cash back system from Canon.

It´s realistic, that the 7D Mark II appear between 02-2014 and 05-2014.

There are three different prototypes out for testing with two different sensors. One prototype don´t have WIFI and GPS in it.


----------



## TheJock (Oct 28, 2013)

The 7D is the flagship of the APS-C range, so I can’t see the Mkii having a FF sensor, it does, however; need to better the 70D spec wise or what’s the point. Canon should be looking at using their flagship APS-C as the ideal place for something brand new, this will then filter down through the range in years to come, personally I think we may be in for a nice surprise with the final spec’s of this model.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 28, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> jbooba said:
> 
> 
> > "Innovative video features"
> ...



As mentioned, people who say 4K is too much resolution are just kidding themselves, and/or click fishing by posting controversial articles.
The one concession I can make is that if all you're looking at is horribly blurry, shaky cam hollywood garbage (usually rendered in 2K) then of course you can't see the difference. If you're actually looking at something with a lot of detail the difference will be dramatic.



Don Haines said:


> WPJ said:
> 
> 
> > How many MP is 4k?
> ...



I'm convinced that 8K is still nowhere close to perfectly reproducing a slice of the vision of the average human. It would be interesting to compare some 30" prints at varying resolutions and see what people prefer on those.
We already have everything we need to run 4K so that's a shoe in, but 8K is... a bit more bandwidth intensive. As soon as we have all the right technology in place I think 8K will be the standard resolution for the rest of the century.


----------



## drjlo (Oct 28, 2013)

Will 7D II be that mythical Canon product that outperforms (admittedly low) expectations, especially regarding sensor performance?

I have my doubts :-X


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 28, 2013)

drjlo said:


> Will 7D II be that mythical Canon product that outperforms (admittedly low) expectations, especially regarding sensor performance?



Current crop sensor performance is not problem at all _in_good_light_ so if the 7d2 is really an 1d-style sealed body with af performance and firmware features of 5d3 or better tons of people will buy it just for the 1.6x crop factor.

For not so good light and the best iq esp. above iso 1600 no current crop sensor can compete with a ff, not Sony, not Nikon, not Canon - so this is hardly something to complain about.


----------



## Woody (Oct 28, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> For not so good light and the best iq esp. above iso 1600 no current crop sensor can compete with a ff, not Sony, not Nikon, not Canon - so this is hardly something to complain about.



I think most people are looking at the low ISO dynamic range numbers very closely...


----------



## TrabimanUK (Oct 28, 2013)

All we need now is the 100-400mm MK2 to be announced at the same time and then Atlantis will probably rise from the oceans 

Saying that, for $2000, so probably £2000 (as they like to overcharge us in the UK), I'd settle for a camera with those kind of specs and happily put up with a new member of the European Union rising from the sea.


----------



## garyknrd (Oct 28, 2013)

I will pass at this point. To little to late. I moved on.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 28, 2013)

I really liked the 7D, it's a fantastic camera for it's day except for the very poor quality sensor. It was noisy at low ISO's and it lacked the micro contrast and sharpness of it's full frame brothers of the similar era. Every other part of the camera was excellent. It's handling and UI were a big step forwards for Canon. Certainly better than the XXD which pre-dated it. If there wasn't a 7D then I doubt the 5DIII or 1DX would have been quite as stunning. 

I'll probably get one to accompany my 5DIII's and offer me that extra reach which a 1.6x crop does so well. Pop a 400mm f2.8 on it and it's a very useful 650mm.


----------



## stefsan (Oct 28, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I really liked the 7D, it's a fantastic camera for it's day except for the very poor quality sensor. It was noisy at low ISO's and it lacked the micro contrast and sharpness of it's full frame brothers of the similar era. Every other part of the camera was excellent. It's handling and UI were a big step forwards for Canon. Certainly better than the XXD which pre-dated it. If there wasn't a 7D then I doubt the 5DIII or 1DX would have been quite as stunning.



Except that I would use present tense (the 7D still has a slightly crappy sensor but is a very capable camera in every other respect) I agree wholeheartedly!


----------



## TrabimanUK (Oct 28, 2013)

M.ST said:


> There are three different prototypes out for testing with two different sensors. One prototype don´t have WIFI and GPS in it.



Go on, give us a clue as to what the two differnt sensors are!  Is that in terms of MP or APS-C/FF or both or something completely different?

Looking at the 7D and comparing it to the top Canon's of 2009 (1D IV, 1DS II, 5DII, 50D) my money would be on a 24MP sensor as a minimum. Yes, the low light side of things needs to be improved, my 5D (original) is leagues ahead at ISO 1600, so my guess would be realistically an IQ similar to that of a 1Ds II or (hopefully) a 5D II.

As a slight curve ball, APS-H anyone?


----------



## SPL (Oct 28, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I really liked the 7D, it's a fantastic camera for it's day except for the very poor quality sensor. It was noisy at low ISO's and it lacked the micro contrast and sharpness of it's full frame brothers of the similar era. Every other part of the camera was excellent. It's handling and UI were a big step forwards for Canon. Certainly better than the XXD which pre-dated it. If there wasn't a 7D then I doubt the 5DIII or 1DX would have been quite as stunning.
> 
> I'll probably get one to accompany my 5DIII's and offer me that extra reach which a 1.6x crop does so well. Pop a 400mm f2.8 on it and it's a very useful 650mm.


+1
I liked the 7D also, except for that sensor...


----------



## pvk (Oct 28, 2013)

I own both a 7D and the 5DIII. The results of the 5DIII are generally so much better, in terms of focus accuracy, color, dynamics and ISO (in RAW). The 7D is hard pressed going above 400 ISO for bird photograpy. With the 5DIII you can take photo's at 1600 ISO without problems, or even higher depending on the circumstances.

But in many cases I need or can use the extra 1.6 crop factor. So having a marriage between the 5DIII type quality, with a APS C camera, and high speed would be great. Basically a top of the line crop camera. I assume the innovative video will be the dual pixel 70D, plus other features?

I will get this the day it gets out.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Oct 28, 2013)

I love using my 7D for longer range work using the 100-400, its just great. BUT...I dont use it as much due to the lack of ISO capability in low light. With that being said. If the new 7D has ISO capabilities similar to the 5DIII I will grab one as soon as it comes out.


----------



## Sella174 (Oct 28, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> 20MP or 24MP sensor with Dual Pixel CMOS AF ... _*hidden behind mirror and thus not used in normal operation*_
> _*Innovative video features*_
> Price around $2000
> Very good *high* ISO performance ... _*but still no sub-100*_
> _*clacking mirror with OVF, thus AF misalignment and OVF-influenced lightmetering*_



So apart from more megapixels, how is this an upgrade? Maybe for you, but not for me.


----------



## luckydude (Oct 28, 2013)

pvk said:


> I own both a 7D and the 5DIII.
> 
> But in many cases I need or can use the extra 1.6 crop factor.
> 
> I will get this the day it gets out.



Me too. As in own both and like the 5D better. I'd pay way more than $2000 for a crop version of the 5DIII that produced images as good as the 5DIII. If the 100% crops were as good as the 5DIII I'd pay the same as what I paid for the 5DIII. Are you listening Canon? Us wildlife people want the 1.6x bump but can't take the crappy sensor. So a sensor as good as the 5DIII, same AF points (or better if you like, nice for birds in flight), same UI (the 7D was a step up in UI IMHO, I like it).

Bring it on, Canon, we want to buy it.


----------



## silversurfer96 (Oct 28, 2013)

The new spec looks tempting. Maybe I should consider selling my current one...


----------



## surapon (Oct 28, 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/?p=14594\"></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/?p=14594\">Tweet</a></div>
> <p><strong>EOS 7D Mark II in March?
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, 1 for me , Please
If 24 MP, ---- 2 for me , and I can retire my 20 D, and 1DS MK. I, But I still keep 7D and 5D MK II for the spare.

Surapon


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 28, 2013)

silversurfer96 said:


> The new spec looks tempting.



Remember a [CR1] is as good as rolling dice, and just an incentive for senseless (but fun) speculation


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 28, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> silversurfer96 said:
> 
> 
> > The new spec looks tempting.
> ...



I kind of think there is no real spec list! LOL CR1 is pretty much an excuse to get some more action on the forums... and it's working!


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 28, 2013)

The 7D2 sounds great and I definitely want one, but seeing another random 3D posting last night got me thinking. A 46.8MP full frame sensor is the same pixel density as Canons 18MP APS-C sensors. If they wanted it to, that camera could do everything the 7D does and possibly more. The idea of switching from a big MP landscape mode to a crop sports mode is pretty appealing, and given that other cameras already do this we can be pretty sure that the functionality will be implemented in some form. I think it might be worth waiting after the 7D2 launch to see if the compromise in crop mode specs is worth exchanging for the extra versatility.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 28, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > 20MP or 24MP sensor with Dual Pixel CMOS AF ... _*hidden behind mirror and thus not used in normal operation*_
> ...



Since you asked.

Autofocus similar to the 5DIII would be an upgrade for me.
10-12 frames per second would be an upgrade, but not a big selling point for me.
High grade weathersealing would be an upgrade for me.
GPS and WiFi would be an upgrade, but not a big selling point for me.
Very Good ISO performance would be an upgrade for me (assuming that means at least one and possibly two stops lower noise)

Another thing that would be an upgrade and which will certainly be included is control of 600-EX RT through the on-camera menu.

A single card slot would be a disappointment, but I'm not convinced Canon will go that route. It's a cheap feature to add and if they are positioning the 7DII as an APS-C counterpart to the 5DIII, I think they will likely include dual card slots. 

I really couldn't care less about the increase in megapixels. I'd happily trade 24 mp for 18 mp if it meant better low-light performance. What good is a 24mp image if it's too noisy to use? Frankly, if the choice is between the dual-pixel autofocus and better ISO performance, I'd gladly leave the dual-pixel autofocus to the 70D. However, I doubt that will happen because the video is just too big of a market to remove that feature. (And, I honestly don't know if it would have any impact on sensor performance).




Chuck Alaimo said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > silversurfer96 said:
> ...



Yeah, I think anyone who reads Canon Rumors could have written this same spec list. I do hope the chatter will start to pick up. If it doesn't Craig may have to change the website to "Canon Lack-of-Rumors."


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 28, 2013)

I still say it's going to be a 24Mpixel dual-pixel mirrorless camera..... I have never gotten a prediction right yet and this should keep my record intact.... 

and on a somewhat more serious note.... how long before 120 or 240 hz video modes appear on Canon DSLRs?


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 28, 2013)

bassfield said:


> You can never get the same quality with an APS sensor size as with a 2,6 times larger 24x36 sensor without imposing extraordinary sensor technology.
> Sensor size matter


I smile when the technology arguments come out.... 

If Canon did manage to come out with some new and extraordinary technology they could make an APS-C with ISO and noise capacities as good as a current FF sensor... but then they would apply that same extraordinary new technology to the next round of FF sensors and we are back to FF being twice as good in poor light...

You are right.... Sensor size matters.... In poor light you can make the lens bigger (F.6 lens anyone?), you can shoot at longer exposures (everyone stay perfectly still now....) or use a bigger sensor to collect more photons... only one of the three is practical


----------



## greger (Oct 28, 2013)

I agree with Marsu42. Interesting spec list. There will be a Parade of posts and speculation until Canon makes an announcement which causes a flurry of rants about not enough specs to please the critical few who won't be buying a new camera till H freezes over or their wants are nearly met as these people are never satisfied. I hope the 7D ll is much better than the 70D which is a wonderful camera that my wife loves to use.


----------



## whothafunk (Oct 28, 2013)

"very good ISO performance" ;D reading this sentence as it is makes me giggle, roll eyes and laugh out loud. i cant take anything serious written in that manner. VERY GOOD PERFORMANCE, YIS


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 28, 2013)

pvk said:


> I own both a 7D and the 5DIII. The results of the 5DIII are generally so much better, in terms of focus accuracy, color, dynamics and ISO (in RAW). The 7D is hard pressed going above 400 ISO for bird photograpy. With the 5DIII you can take photo's at 1600 ISO without problems, or even higher depending on the circumstances.
> 
> But in many cases I need or can use the extra 1.6 crop factor. So having a marriage between the 5DIII type quality, with a APS C camera, and high speed would be great. Basically a top of the line crop camera. I assume the innovative video will be the dual pixel 70D, plus other features?
> 
> I will get this the day it gets out.



That's exactly the same results as I saw with my 7D (before I sold it recently). 400 iso or lower and slightly softer / milkier images than my 5DII / III's were producing.


----------



## Gary Irwin (Oct 28, 2013)

"20MP or 24MP sensor with Dual Pixel CMOS AF"

No surprise here. Personally 20 MP would do it for me. 

"Auto-Focus system similar to the EOS 5D Mark III (61 points), possibly the same as 5D3"

Huh? No DX will ever have the same density of AF sensors from an FX. Who dreamed this up?

"High frame rate, 10-12 fps"

To compete with the 1Dx? not likely. 8 FPS max.

“high grade” weather sealing, like Canon’s professional DSLRs

Maybe, but it won't sell for $2K.

"Dual Digic V+ processor"
OK

"Single card slot"

In this day and age? Fail.

"WiFi & GPS"

Probably iPhone compatible too. Yawn.

"Innovative video features"

Yawn.

"Price around $2000"

In your dreams.

"Very good ISO performance"

LOL! Based on the last few releases from Canon, that doesn't say much.

I hope the 7DII is real, but these specs are basically wishful thinking.


----------



## Skirball (Oct 28, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Very Good ISO performance would be an upgrade for me (assuming that means at least one and possibly two stops lower noise)



That's a very optimistic interpretation of 'very good ISO performance'. A full stop improvement would be a significant jump in technology (especially if it was a 24 MP sensor). Two stops would be groundbreaking. Not going to say it's impossible, but making a crop sensor with better ISO performance than the best full frame sensors would be huge, and it wouldn't be premiered on a $2000 camera.


----------



## Pi (Oct 28, 2013)

Skirball said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Very Good ISO performance would be an upgrade for me (assuming that means at least one and possibly two stops lower noise)
> ...



Given that the 7D has about 40% QE, a 2 stop improvement of the (photon) noise would mean 160% QE, enough to earn Canon a Nobel prize, and shake the foundations of physics.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 28, 2013)

Pi said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Oh crap! If Canon wins a Nobel, I shudder to think what they'll charge for stuff now!


----------



## RichM (Oct 28, 2013)

pvk said:


> I own both a 7D and the 5DIII. The results of the 5DIII are generally so much better, in terms of focus accuracy, color, dynamics and ISO (in RAW). The 7D is hard pressed going above 400 ISO for bird photograpy. With the 5DIII you can take photo's at 1600 ISO without problems, or even higher depending on the circumstances.
> 
> But in many cases I need or can use the extra 1.6 crop factor. So having a marriage between the 5DIII type quality, with a APS C camera, and high speed would be great. Basically a top of the line crop camera. I assume the innovative video will be the dual pixel 70D, plus other features?
> 
> I will get this the day it gets out.



I agree. I too own both a 7d and 5d3. I find I now use the 5d3 in every situation except daylight sports. I'm anxious to get the next 7d, with better AF and high ISO capabilities in a APS-C format, with IQ at least as good. All other specs are irrelevant, and as a photographer (not videographer) I couldn't care less about video improvements.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 28, 2013)

Gary Irwin said:


> "Auto-Focus system similar to the EOS 5D Mark III (61 points), possibly the same as 5D3"
> 
> Huh? No DX will ever have the same density of AF sensors from an FX. Who dreamed this up?



Why not? The AF sensors are very close to the same size across the entire line APS-C, APS-H or FF.
Don't believe me, go to cleaning mode and look and also compare the size of the mini-drop down mirror for AF and see for yourself.



> "High frame rate, 10-12 fps"
> 
> To compete with the 1Dx? not likely. 8 FPS max.



Better to compete with the (old model) 1DX than to fail to compete with other brands....
And it's not like this is FF so it's not the same thing as 1DX whatever fps it has.



> “high grade” weather sealing, like Canon’s professional DSLRs
> 
> Maybe, but it won't sell for $2K.



Sealing doesn't cost that much, but that said, yeah it could drop at a higher price.



> "Dual Digic V+ processor"
> OK



Possibly, although you'd hope for digic 6 or 7 so the video doesn't get mushed up again (assuming it is the currently crummy video processing of digic that is doing it and not marketing telling the engineers to add in a Gaussian blur step (which is possible too).



> "Single card slot"
> In this day and age? Fail.



Who knows. I don't care myself, although clearly some do .



> "WiFi & GPS"
> Probably iPhone compatible too. Yawn.



GPS can be a darn nice feature and some of the connectivity can be helpful too especially if you can



> "Innovative video features"
> Yawn.



It's a BIG market and very important IMO. Word is a great many of the huge 5D2 sales were actually do to video/film only or mostly guys and they are what made it a hit even more than the stills shooters.



> "Price around $2000"
> In your dreams.



Hard to say, the way Canon has been going with prices it seems doubtful, but competition is brewing so who knows.



> "Very good ISO performance"
> LOL! Based on the last few releases from Canon, that doesn't say much.



Hah, agree for the most part (although the 6D probably did manage 2/3rds of a stop better SNR and 1.5+ stops better DR at high ISO than the 5D2 which is a pretty decent bump, but for the most part, yeah it means we found a new way to smear in cam jpgs better).



> I hope the 7DII is real, but these specs are basically wishful thinking.



They may be but that are not wishful in the crazy not going to happen sense, they seem perfectly realistically reasonable. Look at how old the 7D is and look how long this new one will need to sell, look at the competition, if it doesn't have at least these specs it'll be dead in the water! It doesn't need to sell today but 2-3 or more years from now! Anything less and they may as well not bother.


----------



## Efka76 (Oct 29, 2013)

In my opinion Canon engineers are really confused and do not know what to do with 7DII  Look at 6D history: there were a lot of speculation and very high expectations from the market, however, Canon intentionally crippled that model in order not to canibalize 5DIII and 7D sales. 7D is long overdue and Canon is afraid that in you make 7DII as mini 1Dx (the difference would be a different sensor size) and also sensor would be based on new technology, that would also negatively affect 6D, 5DIII and 1dX sales.

In my opinion, Canon ha to many camera models. They lack Steve Jobs mind person who returned to Apple and get rid of many computer models but produced few which are very well known. It would be fully sufficient to have 3 models only: 1Dx - for real professional photographers, 5DIII - wedding photographers camera and 7DII - crop sized 1Dx. Get rid of rebels and p&s crap (p&s market will be dead in few years). Canon should put more efforts on mirrorless cameras' line (currently they are significantly behind competitors).

Also, market is waiting from Canon significant developments in sensors. Canon already milked that "old sensor" cow for too many years, they earn sufficient profit which could be wisely spend on R&D. It is a pity, however, I see a former leader in technology, which is doing quite well due to big variety of lenses, however, future outlook is not promising..... mirrorless market is already lost to Fuji, Olympus and Sony, Sigma & Tamron significantly increased lens quality (but they charge significantly less than Canon).


----------



## WPJ (Oct 29, 2013)

I remember someone saying change the card slot to SD....the worse idea I've head this thread, cf all the way I want my buffer clear asap....

also usb3 or better yet gig Ethernet jack to get my files off.


----------



## surapon (Oct 29, 2013)

mkabi said:


> Yeah, I don't know... why would they create something that would be equal to or better than the 5D mark iii and/or 1DX _*and*_ price it lower than those 2?
> 
> Defeats the purpose...




+1 for me too, Dear Mkabi
The Japanese MFG. are the Smart Companies in the Word, And They will not " why would they create something that would be equal to or better than the 5D mark iii and/or 1DX and price it lower than those 2?.
Yes I am agree wit you 250%.
Thanks
Surapon


----------



## Pi (Oct 29, 2013)

surapon said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I don't know... why would they create something that would be equal to or better than the 5D mark iii and/or 1DX _*and*_ price it lower than those 2?
> ...



Here is another thought: because the cannot? And because nobody can?


----------



## rowlandw (Oct 29, 2013)

Digic 5? Isn't Digic 6 out already?


----------



## surapon (Oct 29, 2013)

Pi said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > mkabi said:
> ...



Dear Sir, Mr. Pi.
I love your great Words " Here is another thought: because the cannot? And because nobody can?"----
If Canon were American Company, Yes, They Will, Because American Company try the Best way to improve their Products---And Get Rid of their Old Models.
But Japanese company are Behind American Companies in The way to do Business( for 30-50 years behind), And Because the Old time thinking, The Japanese Companies, Never Kill the Best Selling products such as 5D MK III and 1Dx----That Why in my Thinking ( Just my Stupid Idea), The 7D MK II should be 20 MP, and 10 FPS. Only----Below the 5D MK III and 1DX.
Yes, Sir, Canon invent 100 MP sensor 3 years ago, But They still hold on their Inventor, Let us us/ Buy only 22.5 MP cameras-----Ha, Ha, Ha, And Let Nikon Give us the New Camera 36 MP last year ( ?).
Nice to talk to you , Sir.
Surapon


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 29, 2013)

WPJ said:


> I remember someone saying change the card slot to SD....the worse idea I've head this thread, cf all the way I want my buffer clear asap....
> 
> also usb3 or better yet gig Ethernet jack to get my files off.



You realize that the SD cards available today are faster than the Compact Flash cards were when the 7D came out  and of course the compact flash of today are even faster... As someone with a bunch of fast SD cards, let me add my name to the list of people who would prefer a compact flash slot over an SD slot...

I can't see GigE connectivity on a camera.... consumers like wireless... the throughput of wireless is laughable compared to GigE, but wireless is more convenient... so the poorer solution wins... USB3 has to come soon, at some point people will stop making chipsets that only go up to USB2... USB will win out over Ethernet because all you have to do is plug it in.... no configuration required, and a lot of people use laptops and tablets with no wired Ethernet connection... USB is a more universal solution than wired Ethernet.

Almost all the new test equipment at the lab where I work has GigE interfaces... you can talk to it from anywhere.... way more flexible than dedicated cables... Personally, I would like to see it on a camera, but I doubt the masses are ready yet.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 29, 2013)

Efka76 said:


> In my opinion, Canon ha to many camera models. They lack Steve Jobs mind person who returned to Apple and get rid of many computer models but produced few which are very well known. It would be fully sufficient to have 3 models only: 1Dx - for real professional photographers, 5DIII - wedding photographers camera and 7DII - crop sized 1Dx. Get rid of rebels and p&s crap (p&s market will be dead in few years). Canon should put more efforts on mirrorless cameras' line (currently they are significantly behind competitors).



Both Canon and Nikon have directly said that they will move focus more toward low end products (Rebel/Dxxxx).
It's been pointed out several times already, the high end market is saturated, and the P&S market is shrinking fast. If there's any growth (or, less shrinking) to be had it's in the range between the two.
And really the only difference between Canons current high end line and the one you suggest is the 6D, which seems to be almost universally praised.


----------



## Zv (Oct 29, 2013)

9VIII said:


> Efka76 said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion, Canon ha to many camera models. They lack Steve Jobs mind person who returned to Apple and get rid of many computer models but produced few which are very well known. It would be fully sufficient to have 3 models only: 1Dx - for real professional photographers, 5DIII - wedding photographers camera and 7DII - crop sized 1Dx. Get rid of rebels and p&s crap (p&s market will be dead in few years). Canon should put more efforts on mirrorless cameras' line (currently they are significantly behind competitors).
> ...



Also, not everyone can afford a 7D2 at $2000. There will always be a demand for the consumer low priced level tech. Beginners, amateurs, moms and dads, hiking trips and just general purpose stuff where folk want something decent but without the high cost.


----------



## photo212 (Oct 29, 2013)

Canon really needs to get this update out there. the 7D is ancient technology by comparable standards. Good camera/sensor, but so many others have passed it by. Hard to purchase something so old knowing Canon has to be considering a replacement soon.

Rebels are fine for those not torturing their camera equipment. I just would not trust a Rebel in harsh weather or the abuse of man-handling it. What is left for the wildlife or sports photographer that benefits from the cropped sensor? 

The GPS and Wifi thing is not a necessity. In fact, I'm more than likely disabling both features should I ever finally get a chance to upgrade my 50D and 40D. I'd rather have a tight body that can hold up to the rigors of weather and abuse than external communication without wires or a pack on the bottom.


----------



## sanj (Oct 29, 2013)

Efka76 said:


> that would also negatively affect 6D, 5DIII and 1dX sales.



How?


----------



## TrabimanUK (Oct 29, 2013)

One thing that I notice is mising from the "spec list" and that no-one seems to have picked up on, which IMHO is Canon's greatest development in the past 10-20 years - the lockable Mode Dial!

Fit one of those and I'm sold!


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 29, 2013)

TrabimanUK said:


> One thing that I notice is mising from the "spec list" and that no-one seems to have picked up on, which IMHO is Canon's greatest development in the past 10-20 years - the lockable Mode Dial! Fit one of those and I'm sold!



No way, you're missing out on the latest and greatest Canon development, featured in the otherwise under-spec'ed 6d: you can now play mp3 music files along your in-camera slideshow! If this is ported to the 7d2, Canon doesn't need to worry about sensor performance and similar hogwash


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 29, 2013)

TrabimanUK said:


> One thing that I notice is mising from the "spec list" and that no-one seems to have picked up on, which IMHO is Canon's greatest development in the past 10-20 years - the lockable Mode Dial!
> 
> Fit one of those and I'm sold!



Funny thing is that both my A1 and AE-1 program cameras have lockable mode dials. The later EOS 650 cameras has their mode dial pointing towards the photographer...so the lock aspect wasn't needed. When we went digital, Canon seemed to loose this feature....only to re-implement it back again on the 60D after a lot of complaints (ie 5 years at least). It was available as a cost upgrade on a 7D and 5DII models.


----------



## stefsan (Oct 29, 2013)

Pi said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



I don't need them to find new physics and win a Nobel Prize (I wouldn't complain if they did) but getting rid of that annoying banding noise the 7D sensor produces would count almost as much for me 8)


----------



## bseitz234 (Oct 29, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> WPJ said:
> 
> 
> > I remember someone saying change the card slot to SD....the worse idea I've head this thread, cf all the way I want my buffer clear asap....
> ...



I can't speak from experience, as I haven't made the leap yet, but I understand 802.11ac is actually starting to approach the real-world throughput of gigE. While I doubt they'd put an ac antenna array in the 7d2 for space and power reasons, they COULD get the throughput if they wanted.

Also, given that Apple's target market for laptops correlates pretty strongly with pro and prosumer camera buyers, I think a thunderbolt / USB3 combo would be awesome- USB3 for PC users, TB for mac...


----------



## roguewave (Oct 29, 2013)

Pi said:


> Given that the 7D has about 40% QE, a 2 stop improvement of the (photon) noise would mean 160% QE, enough to earn Canon a Nobel prize, and shake the foundations of physics.



Pardon my ignorance in physics... are you saying that 7D's sensor is only about 1 stop short of the theoretical limit so in practice it's impossible to improve the low-light sensitivity of APS-C sized sensors any further than t 1/3 - 1/2 stop? Or are there other factors involved? Of course, I mean sensors with the same resolution, not a 3MP sensor with huge pixels .


----------



## Pi (Oct 29, 2013)

roguewave said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Given that the 7D has about 40% QE, a 2 stop improvement of the (photon) noise would mean 160% QE, enough to earn Canon a Nobel prize, and shake the foundations of physics.
> ...



Pixels do not matter. The modern sensors with Bayer design have around 50% QE; the 7D has about 40%, see sensorgen. There is about 1 stop left; in practice, 1/2 or so. Lowering the read noise would improve the shadows a bit more but Canon is not worse there at high ISO than any other manufacturer (at high ISO).

The QE is computed on the green channel, I believe. Non-Bayer design would improve that even further but right now, the technology for that does not exist even though there are some good ideas. The foveon sensor is actually worse at high ISO and has poor color fidelity.


----------



## roguewave (Oct 29, 2013)

Pi said:


> Pixels do not matter. The modern sensors with Bayer design have around 50% QE; the 7D has about 40%, see sensorgen. There is about 1 stop left; in practice, 1/2 or so. Lowering the read noise would improve the shadows a bit more but Canon is not worse there at high ISO than any other manufacturer (at high ISO).
> 
> The QE is computed on the green channel, I believe. Non-Bayer design would improve that even further but right now, the technology for that does not exist even though there are some good ideas. The foveon sensor is actually worse at high ISO and has poor color fidelity.



Thanks for the explanation! If that's the case though, what kind of "Very good ISO performance" is expected according to this rumour?

Also, why is it that pixel size does not matter? I believe a lower resolution sensor of the same physical size would have proportionally larger photosites, which would exhibit less noise by gathering larger amount of light.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 29, 2013)

bseitz234 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > WPJ said:
> ...


This is a bit of a simplistic explanation, but here goes....

There are two basic types of network traffic, on type is where you set up "a pipe" and the data automatically streams down the pipe from one device to the other, the other type of data flow is a send/acknowledge data flow.... something like "here's a bit of data", answered by "I got it.... send me another"... and so on.. Most network traffic tends to be send/acknowledge and it takes time for the requests and acknoledgements to fly back and forth so the flow of data is slow.

When you connect with wire, data can flow both ways at once and this greatly speeds up the send/acknowledge protocols. On a wireless link you can only go one direction at a time and it takes time to turn the link around... plus you can have interference on wireless which causes re-transmissions and further slows things down. Processing of the data is faster on wire than wireless so there is less delay there too.

All this adds up...

In the end, you find out that it takes almost the same amount of time on a wireless link to move 20 bytes of data as it takes to move 1400 bytes of data so if you want any decent kind of throughput you need to be moving huge blocks of data in one direction and small amounts the other way..

Marketing people have a different perspective.... they compare the most favourable conditions of a wireless link to the least favourable conditions on a wired link... and that's how they come up with claims to be "almost as fast"

As a photographer, I suggest you do your own test... transfer a bunch of photos from a laptop to a computer over a wireless link, and then repeat the process over a wire link... send some tiny Jpgs and then try some RAW files and see the difference it makes to you on your gear...


----------



## Sabaki (Oct 29, 2013)

So I shoot a 500D and I have an issue I don't see mentioned much in the "I want..." lists but I do know it's widely acknowledged. 

Reproduction of reds and yellows. 

Any chance that Canon could solve this issue?


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 29, 2013)

Sabaki said:


> So I shoot a 500D and I have an issue I don't see mentioned much in the "I want..." lists but I do know it's widely acknowledged.
> 
> Reproduction of reds and yellows.
> 
> Any chance that Canon could solve this issue?



Your camera should have a "white balance shift" option in the menu somewhere, you can permanently change the colour balance there. I've read that adjusting this somewhat fixes the issue.
Both my T3 and 5D2 have it, so it's probably on all the other models too.


----------



## Sabaki (Oct 29, 2013)

Thanks 9VIII

For the record, what's the science as to why Canon's don't do reds as well as the other colours? Shouldn't it be something Canon correctly calibrates instead of us trying to?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2013)

Sabaki said:


> Thanks 9VIII
> 
> For the record, what's the science as to why Canon's don't do reds as well as the other colours? Shouldn't it be something Canon correctly calibrates instead of us trying to?



It depends entirely on what algorithm you use to interpret the RAW data, just look at the difference between the same RAW file in DPP set to Portrait against Lightroom set to Adobe Standard, it is not that Canon reds are bad, it is that we don't take the time and trouble to use a profile that is accurate. For the record Adobe's Adobe Standard is very bad in interpreting the red channel on Canon RAW files, their picture mode emulations are MUCH better.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 29, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> For the record Adobe's Adobe Standard is very bad in interpreting the red channel on Canon RAW files, their picture mode emulations are MUCH better.



Because I hated the *yellow* cast of "Adobe Standard" I have switched to "Camera Neutral" which looks dull at first but seems to give the best results after a lot of adjustments - it's a shame the most important setting in Lightroom is at the very bottom :-\ ... I have to check about it also being better in saturated red gradients because this is one of the problems I know of esp. with crop files from my 60d.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 29, 2013)

Many people actually like the over saturated reds that Canon produces by default. It seems to make people look better, vs. the green hue you may get with other brands.
Really it all seems very situational though. In the 70D vs. D7100 epic shootout (http://www.youtube.com/user/MichaelTheMentor/videos?view=0&flow=grid) by MichaelTheMentor, he spends a fair amount of time going over the colour differences between the two. When I took the comparison test I tried to select the Canon throughout, and got it wrong more often than not.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > For the record Adobe's Adobe Standard is very bad in interpreting the red channel on Canon RAW files, their picture mode emulations are MUCH better.
> ...



If you are using Lightroom set it as your import preset, then you never have to remember it again.


----------



## renegade54 (Oct 29, 2013)

I am not a physicist, nor do I pretend to comprehend most of what some you fine folks say in that and other highly technologically advanced areas with respect to cameras. Those of you that debate these matters truly amaze me. Truly impressive depth of knowledge here, and I mean that sincerely.

That said, as a consumer of Canon products and basically an amateur enthusiast who just wants to get better and better at photography so I can take great photos in virtually all conditions, I cannot fathom why Canon would make a product such as the 7d2 "better" than the 1DX. I am not taking about "better value" mind you, I mean to say "better" period. To my logic, if Canon could do that, they would be doing it and THAT would be their flagship Professional camera body. But there are many people that I have heard / read both here and elsewhere who not only claim that the 7d2 is going to be the APS-C version of a 1DX producing similar images to the 5d3 but that it will cost $4,000 - $5,000 LESS than a 1DX and $1500 less than a 5d3.

Why on earth would Canon do this? The 7d2 will probably be a great camera (it better be) but if buying one eliminates the need for Pro level photographers and enthusiasts to have to buy any FF camera whatsoever then Canon would be committing business suicide. I can list a few reasons as to why they _might_ do this, but NONE of them make logical sense from a business perspective. 

I think the 7d2 will be an awesome camera, and it will probably be the perfect marriage to pro shooters or advanced enthusiasts currently using one of the 5 series or 1 series FF bodies. But "replace" those FF cameras it will not.


----------



## WPJ (Oct 29, 2013)

Renegade54, but the 1dx is what 2 years old, 3 by the time this will come out it should be better in all regards or at least the same as the 1dx minus full frame, otherwise they have no reason to replace the 1dx


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 29, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> If you are using Lightroom set it as your import preset, then you never have to remember it again.



Thanks, I already did that - unfortunately I learned about the disadvantages of Adobe Standard too late so I had to re-process heaps of old pictures, that's why I often suggest learning about switching the calibration to others :-o ... I still use Adobe standard for bracketing and focus stacking though since this is the calibration that "throws away" the least amount of raw data.


----------



## Skirball (Oct 29, 2013)

renegade54 said:


> That said, as a consumer of Canon products and basically an amateur enthusiast who just wants to get better and better at photography so I can take great photos in virtually all conditions, I cannot fathom why Canon would make a product such as the 7d2 "better" than the 1DX.



They wouldn’t. Even if Canon has some technological breakthrough that allowed them to create a crop sensor that had better performance than the best FF sensors they make, they would put all the bells and whistles on it, put it in a “pro body”, and sell it for more than the 1Dx, because they can. There’s not a business man alive that wouldn’t know to milk a tech advance like that. And while they’re pulling in the sales from that they can create a megapixel monster for a FF camera with the same pixel density, and then a FF sensor using the same technology but normal density that would allow even greater high ISO performance. And they can wait a good several years before letting that technology trickle down to the consumer levels.


----------



## renegade54 (Oct 29, 2013)

WPJ said:


> Renegade54, but the 1dx is what 2 years old, 3 by the time this will come out it should be better in all regards or at least the same as the 1dx minus full frame, otherwise they have no reason to replace the 1dx



That's just it....I disagree with the premise that the 7d line is in direct competition with the 1D line. If the 7d2 is going to be "better" than the 1DX then why would a pro have a need for the 1DX2, or the next iteration of the 1DX? They would just use the 7d2 and wait for the 7d3. That's not to say the 7d2 is not going to be a great camera, but it will have it's niche...and all it has to be is the best in it's niche...not better than a FF 1DX.


----------



## renegade54 (Oct 29, 2013)

Skirball said:


> renegade54 said:
> 
> 
> > That said, as a consumer of Canon products and basically an amateur enthusiast who just wants to get better and better at photography so I can take great photos in virtually all conditions, I cannot fathom why Canon would make a product such as the 7d2 "better" than the 1DX.
> ...



I agree 100%. Well said.


----------



## Dirtysoap (Oct 29, 2013)

looking somewhat forward to a 7d2 but.. its crop and i went from crop to ff and the quality is amazing compared to crop. i cant see me going back even if its lighter and 1.6x. ff just to good


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 29, 2013)

Dirtysoap said:


> ff just to good



So you'd rather use a 5d1 instead of a 70d  ?


----------



## pj1974 (Oct 29, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> bseitz234 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I’ve written it before, and I’m repeating it here again – I really appreciate many of your posts on Canon Rumours forum, Don.
Thanks to you and many others (of course Dr Neuro deserves thanks as well for his great technical insights) 

Your post above is spot on: technically accurate and helpful. I find that I rarely use wireless – though it can be handy at times (eg quick connect of laptop for 2 minutes). However for serious internet usage, data transfers, I stick with wired connections. So much faster and predictable (and I find, also more secure – ie less possibility of the occasional wireless drop-outs).

I have undertaken ‘tests’ of file transfer speeds for many years: using tiny JPEG vs large files (eg RAWs) and even vs much larger video files. I have done this to test HDD to HDD transfers, USB (back in the days of USB1.1, USB2.0 and now USB3.0. USB3.0 definitely ‘rocks’! I remember when I thought USB2.0 was ‘blazingly fast’… lol.

I’m looking forward USB3.0 being the new normal standard for all devices and hopefully included on the 7DmkII.(that might be my next camera, but in the meantime – I’m very happy with my Canon 7D. The CR1 rumoured spec list for the 7DmkII looks good (maybe too good to be true) – but I trust Canon will put out a winner when it does!

Regards,

Paul


----------



## WPJ (Oct 29, 2013)

Additionally, with WiFi it is a shared medium, meaning all devices on that channel whether on your SSID or not share that bandwidth, your neighbor if configured for the same channel will also cut your own bandwidth. Additionally you may have all N or newer devices but if you have one old g or even B device is old ds from your kids, your spectrum turn down to the lowest common denominator B. Ouch yes your connection may still say 300mbps but if there is a b radio in site not on your network your AP has to throttle down to b for that device, sorry that's the spec.

there is tricks if your APs will deploy them to over come these issues but not on consumer devices, so unless you are running a Juniper, Cisco (not a Cisco best buy special) it other enterprise controller your out of luck.


----------



## Pi (Oct 29, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Dirtysoap said:
> 
> 
> > ff just to good
> ...



I would. The only reason I did not buy one a few years ago was the lack of MA.


----------



## Pi (Oct 29, 2013)

roguewave said:


> Also, why is it that pixel size does not matter? I believe a lower resolution sensor of the same physical size would have proportionally larger photosites, which would exhibit less noise by gathering larger amount of light.



True for each photosite but not true for the image as a whole. What matters is the total light collected on the sensor. Different pixel densities mean different ways to sample the projected image, and a lower sampling rate is never better. Of course, there are also all those technological challenges. 

Think about this: a 40mp sensor contains all the information a 10mp sensor can collect because you can always bin in software (ignoring the tech challenges for a moment). But it contains more information.


----------



## WPJ (Oct 29, 2013)

Pi said:


> roguewave said:
> 
> 
> > Also, why is it that pixel size does not matter? I believe a lower resolution sensor of the same physical size would have proportionally larger photosites, which would exhibit less noise by gathering larger amount of light.
> ...



I'm just guessing but a full fram 40mp full frame camera will probably have the same size pixels as a 24mp crop sensor. 

so the camp of my full frame captures more light really only captures more megapizels


----------



## Skirball (Oct 29, 2013)

Pi said:


> roguewave said:
> 
> 
> > Also, why is it that pixel size does not matter? I believe a lower resolution sensor of the same physical size would have proportionally larger photosites, which would exhibit less noise by gathering larger amount of light.
> ...



I see what you’re saying, but that assumes that you’re combining photon counts from adjacent pixels, rights? E.g., if you grouped every four pixels together and counted the totals as a single pixel it would be equivalent to the 10 mp sensor with the same theoretical SNR. In that case, sure, more data is always better. But if you’re not summing the pixels then although you’d have four times as many with the 40 mp, the full well capacity would have to 1/4 of the 10 mp. Maybe not an issue at low ISO, but it’s going to limit you as you push higher, no?


----------



## Skirball (Oct 29, 2013)

WPJ said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > roguewave said:
> ...



If my maths are correct I think the crop would be more around 15 mp.

I don't understand your second comment. Are you implying that a full frame doesn't capture more light than a crop sensor?


----------



## Pi (Oct 30, 2013)

Skirball said:


> I see what you’re saying, but that assumes that you’re combining photon counts from adjacent pixels, rights? E.g., if you grouped every four pixels together and counted the totals as a single pixel it would be equivalent to the 10 mp sensor with the same theoretical SNR. In that case, sure, more data is always better. But if you’re not summing the pixels then although you’d have four times as many with the 40 mp, the full well capacity would have to 1/4 of the 10 mp. Maybe not an issue at low ISO, but it’s going to limit you as you push higher, no?



The well capacity would be enough to be 1/4 but the light falling on each pixel is 1/4 as well, so there is no problem. 



WPJ said:


> so the camp of my full frame captures more light really only captures more megapizels



More pixels with the same light per pixel = more total light.

Again, the mp number is irrelevant. The noise is part of the image itself -it has a discrete nature. Different pixel densities sample it in a different way but a lower pixel count is no better.


----------



## Skirball (Oct 30, 2013)

Pi said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > I see what you’re saying, but that assumes that you’re combining photon counts from adjacent pixels, rights? E.g., if you grouped every four pixels together and counted the totals as a single pixel it would be equivalent to the 10 mp sensor with the same theoretical SNR. In that case, sure, more data is always better. But if you’re not summing the pixels then although you’d have four times as many with the 40 mp, the full well capacity would have to 1/4 of the 10 mp. Maybe not an issue at low ISO, but it’s going to limit you as you push higher, no?
> ...



Well yes, that was my point. You would have to reduce the FWC to 1/4 to maintain exposure. So, you increase the ISO two stops. Which would increase the noise at each pixel.

However, the thing I admittedly never thought about until reading this thread: If you then downsample the image in post to the same size as the 10 mp, do the pixels average out to give the same general level of noise as the 10 mp sensor? The more I think about it, at low ISO the answer has to be yes. But, if you’re really pushing the high ISO are the results so far off that it will screw with the final average? And I guess I don’t fully understand how the averaging would work considering the Bayer layer – statistically wouldn’t more noise mean more issues with the green channel, so averaging out the noise isn’t going to be so simple.

Sorry to ramble on mindlessly, it just got me thinking. I can’t believe I never thought of it that way, I was always of the camp of ‘so long as you have enough resolution for your uses, the bigger the pixels the better’.


----------



## WPJ (Oct 30, 2013)

Pi said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > I see what you’re saying, but that assumes that you’re combining photon counts from adjacent pixels, rights? E.g., if you grouped every four pixels together and counted the totals as a single pixel it would be equivalent to the 10 mp sensor with the same theoretical SNR. In that case, sure, more data is always better. But if you’re not summing the pixels then although you’d have four times as many with the 40 mp, the full well capacity would have to 1/4 of the 10 mp. Maybe not an issue at low ISO, but it’s going to limit you as you push higher, no?
> ...



pi, I'm not, saying the,crop would be better, but rather not as much difference as it is today.


----------



## Skirball (Oct 30, 2013)

bassfield said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Skirball said:
> ...



Doesn't larger FWC allow more DR? Of course, as I type this I'm thinking about the D800 its DR. Ah hell, I'm going back to using the green square mode and not thinking about this crap.


----------



## Pi (Oct 30, 2013)

Skirball said:


> Well yes, that was my point. You would have to reduce the FWC to 1/4 to maintain exposure. So, you increase the ISO two stops. Which would increase the noise at each pixel.



I do not know what FWC is but the ISO has no real meaning per pixel. You convert the physical signal to a digital one. Yes, any given value in the RAW file would correspond to less photons, so in this sense, you amplify 4 times more. But then each pixel is involved with 1/4 the weight in the final image, which I always consider to be of the same pixel size, regardless of the sensor. Those two effect cancel each other, and the net effect is zero. 



> However, the thing I admittedly never thought about until reading this thread: If you then downsample the image in post to the same size as the 10 mp, do the pixels average out to give the same general level of noise as the 10 mp sensor? The more I think about it, at low ISO the answer has to be yes. But, if you’re really pushing the high ISO are the results so far off that it will screw with the final average?



No difference whether you are pushing the ISO or not. The benefits of more pixels is that you can do downsampling, when needed, in a much more intelligent way that binning 2x2 blocks. You can do better NR, etc. 

All this is about the photon noise. The readout noise is another factor, and the ability of the manufacturer to make high mp sensors with good QE is yet another one.


----------



## dolina (Oct 30, 2013)

I hope it comes by January. I also hope for a 5D Mark IV or 1DX Mark II.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 30, 2013)

renegade54 said:


> I am not a physicist, nor do I pretend to comprehend most of what some you fine folks say in that and other highly technologically advanced areas with respect to cameras. Those of you that debate these matters truly amaze me. Truly impressive depth of knowledge here, and I mean that sincerely.
> 
> That said, as a consumer of Canon products and basically an amateur enthusiast who just wants to get better and better at photography so I can take great photos in virtually all conditions, I cannot fathom why Canon would make a product such as the 7d2 "better" than the 1DX. I am not taking about "better value" mind you, I mean to say "better" period. To my logic, if Canon could do that, they would be doing it and THAT would be their flagship Professional camera body. But there are many people that I have heard / read both here and elsewhere who not only claim that the 7d2 is going to be the APS-C version of a 1DX producing similar images to the 5d3 but that it will cost $4,000 - $5,000 LESS than a 1DX and $1500 less than a 5d3.
> 
> ...



I think part of what may be missing from your equation is that it's virtually impossible to make crop sensor IQ as good as full frame. Maybe if you compare the 70D with the 1Ds you would get a better shot off the crop camera, but anything produced within a similar time frame is going to be drastically different. Full Frame is significantly better. No one looking for the best images overall is going to get the crop camera, unless they would be cropping anyway.
Even if the 7D2 matches the 1Dx in every aspect but IQ, people will still want the 1Dx. As mentioned, it would also indicate the impending release of a significantly better full frame sensor.
There might be a handful of wildlife shooters willing to pay 1Dx prices for a pro-level crop camera, but that market is probably around two dozen people. The number of people who can't afford a 1Dx and would love to give up some IQ for the same features in a less expensive package are, well, look at the popularity of the original 7D.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 30, 2013)

To me a 7D would be a bird/wildlife backup camera to the 1DX. The most important thing for me, compared to what the current 7D provides, in order of priority:
1: AF. If it gets the 5DIII AF system, it will be a massive improvement.
2: High ISO performance. If it gets to 5DIII standard, I´ll be very happy
3: Dynamic range. I would love to see the DR number grow by at least 1.
4: Resolution. Provided I can get the above, I would want as much as possible. But I would not trade Noise/DR performance for more resolution.
5: fps. 8 is OK, 10 would make me happy
6: A good silent shutter mode, similar to or better than 5DIII. The 1DX machine gun can scare off grizzlies.


----------



## renegade54 (Oct 30, 2013)

9VIII said:


> renegade54 said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a physicist, nor do I pretend to comprehend most of what some you fine folks say in that and other highly technologically advanced areas with respect to cameras. Those of you that debate these matters truly amaze me. Truly impressive depth of knowledge here, and I mean that sincerely.
> ...



Thank you for your reply, and I agree 100% with what you stated. Despite the logic of your statement I am still hearing in this forum as well as all over the fruited plain that the 7d2 is going to be "better" than a 1DX, or have the same IQ as a 5d3. Now while I am certain the more technical versed CR members could give me NUMEROUS examples of how the 7d2 may (upon actual release and having photos to view of course) can produced images comparable to the 5d3 _in certain circumstances_; but that would not translate to the 7d2 being so much as = the 1DX let alone "better" than it. It might be close, and of course it will have it's place as several other posters mentioned. Nonetheless, these iterations of cameras are still too close to each other (in respective ages) for a lower tiered body to suddenly overtake one much less TWO of his bigger, in every sense of the word, brothers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2013)

renegade54 said:


> Despite the logic of your statement I am still hearing in this forum as well as all over the fruited plain that the 7d2 is going to be "better" than a 1DX, or have the same IQ as a 5d3.



This is the Internet, where you can find 'evidence' that humans are descended from extraterrestrials and 'proof' of the existence of unicorns that poop rainbows. Just sayin'.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Oct 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> renegade54 said:
> 
> 
> > Despite the logic of your statement I am still hearing in this forum as well as all over the fruited plain that the 7d2 is going to be "better" than a 1DX, or have the same IQ as a 5d3.
> ...




+1 Thanks to DXO the internet, the quality of information is at an all time low =P


----------



## unfocused (Oct 30, 2013)

Okay, since I've been soundly mocked for suggesting a 1-2 stop improvement in ISO performance for a 7DII, I'm a bit stunned.

Is it the consensus of the techies on this forum that is truly impossible for any manufacturer to produce an APS-C sensor in which the noise level at 1,200 ISO is comparable to 400 ISO (a 1.5 stop improvement)? Or, for that matter, that ISO 800 could look as good as ISO 400 (a one stop improvement)?

That doesn't seem like an unrealistic expectation, but apparently it is. 

If that is truly the case, then I have to wonder what is the point of any future upgrades? Yes, I understand there is more to a camera than the sensor and even with sensors there is the whole quagmire of dynamic range that I'd rather not get into. But, given some of the real world and highly impressive images I've seen on this forum and elsewhere shot with the 5DIII at, what for me as a former film shooter, are remarkable ISOs (3200, 6400 etc.) it just doesn't seem unreasonable to expect the 7DII to boost its ISO performance by even one stop.

If we are truly at the physical limits of sensor performance and can never get an additional fstop out of any future sensor, what does that mean for the industry? And, as a side note, given that Canon is poised to jump into the surveillance market in a much bigger way, is this a fool's errand if we have reached the limits of low-light performance?


----------



## Krob78 (Oct 30, 2013)

bassfield said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, since I've been soundly mocked for suggesting a 1-2 stop improvement in ISO performance for a 7DII, I'm a bit stunned.
> ...





> Quantum efficiency (QE) is the fraction of photon flux that contributes to the photocurrent in a pixel. Increasing QE improves sensor signal to noise ratio and dynamic range.
> There are sensors from Sony who has a QE of 75% and a pixel size of 1,85 micron, Canon best sensor regarding QE is in S100 compakt camera and QE 52% , 6D has the best QE among Canon SLR with 50% compared with Nikon D800 and 56% QE
> The read noise from Canon are 10 times higher (6D) up to 14 times higher (1dx) than in Nikon D800 .
> Improving an APS sensor with real 1,5-2 stops in terms of signal /noise is a big challenge and can not be done with Canon's existing sensor technology regarding APS and 24x36mm sensors


Whew, that's a relief! So... it's still safe to go out and take photos, no? ???


----------



## unfocused (Oct 30, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> bassfield said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum efficiency (QE) is the fraction of photon flux that contributes to the photocurrent in a pixel. Increasing QE improves sensor signal to noise ratio and dynamic range.
> ...



Just be sure you have a working flux capacitor.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 30, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > bassfield said:
> ...


I have a prototype for the new 700EX-RT flash.... it has one.... and the guide number is 1,210,000,000


----------



## jrista (Oct 30, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > I can't help thinking that with declining sales across the board there are too many cameras and too little real innovation in most manufacturers' line-ups. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make the 7D MkII the last conventional DSLR (at least in the APS-C range) and move towards a future without mirrors.
> ...



Totally agree. I'll never use anything but an OVF for my wildlife and bird photography...unless they somehow do manage to create an EVF with 10,000 ppi, 20 stops DR, and a 60fps refresh rate (something I doubt will happen any time soon...)


----------



## jrista (Oct 30, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I don't want to get stills from video but I also don't know why I should accept poorer frames for video than I do for stills.
> ...



Erm, this is so completely wrong. It entirely depends on your visual acuity. The whole notion of the "average" person having 20/20 vision implies that a certain percentage of people also have better vision (and some much better), and that a similar percentage of people have worse vision (and some much worse). For the people who have worse vision, corrective optics these days EASILY correct vision beyond the 20/20 mark. Personally, I am slightly near sighted, and with my contacts or glasses, I have 20/10 vision, like so many other people with corrective lenses. (At my eye doctors office, they generally purposefully try to find the absolute best correction possible, aiming for the highest visual acuity possible. They see thousands of people a year, so you have to figure that between people with excellent vision, people who are slightly far sighted, and everyone walking around with corrective lenses...the "average" visual acuity is actually higher than 20/20.) 

I currently have a trusty old Samsung 46" 1080p TV, and I can just barely see pixels when sitting from the TV at a "comfortable" distance. The distance is ideal for my room setup, with the TV at the recommended distance from my couch. There is no question that bumping the resolution up to 4k would do wonders for quality. It is just simply not enough to have pixels just on the border of 20/10 visual acuity (which is what's recommended)...you need to have the pixels be much smaller in order for them to NEVER intrude on your experience.

Same thing goes for using higher resolution computer screens. Even sitting an appropriate, comfortable distance from my 30" 2560x1600 screen, which until 4k displays started arriving had one of the smallest desktop pixel pitches, exhibits this slight pixellation effect. I can't exactly see individual pixels, but they are again just on the border of my visual acuity...so they bug me. A 4k 32" display would almost reduce the pixel pitch in half, and do wonders for microcontrast and allow me to *see* fine detail in my photos as fine detail, rather than fine pixels that contain detail I should be able to see. Furthermore, if you print, you'll know that it is extremely difficult to soft proof a print on a screen that has at least 1/3rd the pixel density of the print. You can never really tell how the detail will turn out in a print. Personally, I'd be ecstatic with a 28" screen that had a 300ppi pixel density. I'd be able to properly soft-proof the majority of my larger prints at a directly comparable resolution.

There is a LOT going for 4k screens, both TVs as well as workstation screens. The human eye absolutely can resolve that well unless you have particularly poor vision or just have average vision and don't use corrective lenses. Same as with sensor pixel densities, however...the actual output resolution of any system is effectively approximated by the RMS of the individual components. Increase the resolution of a screen, and the ultimate resolution of what your mind's eye sees will still improve, even if you have only 20/20 vision.


----------



## jrista (Oct 30, 2013)

silversurfer96 said:


> The new spec looks tempting. Maybe I should consider selling my current one...



I wouldn't sell until the date they will hit the shelves is known. If Canon's past camera releases are any indication, the actual arrival of any new Canon DSLR is somewhat like the return of Jesus Christ...unknown, unknowable and like a thief in the night.


----------



## jrista (Oct 30, 2013)

bassfield said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, since I've been soundly mocked for suggesting a 1-2 stop improvement in ISO performance for a 7DII, I'm a bit stunned.
> ...



Agreed....to get a visible improvement in high ISO noise performance on an APS-C sensor, Canon is going to have to improve their sensor technology. They will also need to improve their ADC technology as well, though, as a lot of read noise in Canon's current technology actually comes from downstream sources. Those downstream sources seem to cause worse read noise at lower ISO than at higher, but Canon's Q.E. has been improving at a snails pace, and without a significant jump, it is doubtful anyone will see any drastic improvement at higher ISO settings. Given that the 7D II is currently rumored to use a DIGIC 5+, it seems doubtful that Canon has changed any significant aspects of their design...the DIGIC chips currently house their ADCs, so it is most likely that the 7D II will just have two higher stops of even noiser high ISO, rather than an improvement in ISO 3200 by a stop or two.


----------



## jrista (Oct 30, 2013)

Skirball said:


> Doesn't larger FWC allow more DR? Of course, as I type this I'm thinking about the D800 its DR. Ah hell, I'm going back to using the green square mode and not thinking about this crap.



Only really at the lowest ISO setting, however to get more usable DR than the best sensors offer today, you would also need to increase bit depth. The best sensors on the market (Exmor) get around 13.2 stops of DR at the lowest ISO setting. You might be able to push that to 13.8 stops and still use 14 bit data, but to get any meaningful increase, you would need to use full 16 bit data. 

Full well capacity is really more a function of pixel area than pixel Q.E. Area is the defining factor when it comes to how much charge a pixel can hold. Increasing Q.E. might improve sensitivity, which is the rate at which photons convert to charge, but it doesn't do anything to increase the maximum charge (FWC) a pixel can contain. That is why cameras with larger sensors generally perform better than smaller sensors...they have historically had larger pixels. 

It's a trade-off, though. While those larger pixels have less noise, they also reduce spatial resolution. If you have a FF sensor with 8µm pixels and an APS-C sensor with 4µm pixels, the FF sensor will have a higher FWC and therefor less noise, but also half the resolution.


----------



## Krob78 (Oct 30, 2013)

bassfield said:


> Sorry all that I replied with facts regarding improving the Canon APS sensor sensitivity


No problem here my friend! I just wanted to lighten up the tone a bit and keep it real! 

Seriously, there is a lot of interest for this body and it's a great thread! Thanks for your thoughts and input! Some of us are learning new, fun facts! ;D


----------



## unfocused (Oct 30, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> bassfield said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry all that I replied with facts regarding improving the Canon APS sensor sensitivity
> ...



Same here. Sorry if my flippant response seemed insulting. That was not the intent. I know exactly Jack about sensor technology (or most any technology). I was surprised that what I thought was a not unrealistic expectation was so roundly rejected as impossible. On the other hand, maybe that gives some extra life to my 7D.


----------



## Pi (Oct 30, 2013)

jrista said:


> Full well capacity is really more a function of pixel area than pixel Q.E. Area is the defining factor when it comes to how much charge a pixel can hold. Increasing Q.E. might improve sensitivity, which is the rate at which photons convert to charge, but it doesn't do anything to increase the maximum charge (FWC) a pixel can contain. That is why cameras with larger sensors generally perform better than smaller sensors...they have historically had larger pixels.



No, larger sensors perform better (for a given exposure) because they are, well, larger. Pixel size is a secondary, mostly irrelevant factor.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 30, 2013)

Pi said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Full well capacity is really more a function of pixel area than pixel Q.E. Area is the defining factor when it comes to how much charge a pixel can hold. Increasing Q.E. might improve sensitivity, which is the rate at which photons convert to charge, but it doesn't do anything to increase the maximum charge (FWC) a pixel can contain. That is why cameras with larger sensors generally perform better than smaller sensors...they have historically had larger pixels.
> ...


Fairly simple reason for this..... assuming the same technology for reading the charge, if you make the photosite with twice the area, it will collect twice the charge, and the accuracy of the reading will be twice as accurate.....but this is only true until saturation is reached.... and that's why FF is so much better in poor light with less of an advantage in good light.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 31, 2013)

If all the activity here is any indication of the pent-up demand for a 7DII, it is going to fly off the shelves when it gets introduced.... Come on Canon.... introduce it now! A 7DII would fit into my Christmas stocking


----------



## Pi (Oct 31, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Fairly simple reason for this..... assuming the same technology for reading the charge, if you make the photosite with twice the area, it will collect twice the charge, and the accuracy of the reading will be twice as accurate.....but this is only true until saturation is reached.... and that's why FF is so much better in poor light with less of an advantage in good light.



Wrong, the D800 is as good as the D600. Pixel size is an almost irrelevant factor, sensor size is the main factor (for the same exposure). You are confusing what happens at pixel level with what happens at image level.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 31, 2013)

Pi said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Fairly simple reason for this..... assuming the same technology for reading the charge, if you make the photosite with twice the area, it will collect twice the charge, and the accuracy of the reading will be twice as accurate.....but this is only true until saturation is reached.... and that's why FF is so much better in poor light with less of an advantage in good light.
> ...



Could you explain so that I can understand your logic? I am not being sarcastic or trolling..... just looking for the explanation so that I can understand....


----------



## Pi (Oct 31, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



A pixel twice as large will have double the well capacity but it has to collect double the light. No gain, no loss. As far as accuracy goes (read noise), it tends to get higher with the maximal charge (see sensorgen) so it all depends on the technology. The photon noise is part of the image an no trickery can reduce it. 

You can just forget about the pixels. You have a sensor of a given size, illuminated somehow. If the full well capacity depends mainly on the area of the pixel, then the total capacity of the sensor remains constant. In any case, this is relevant at base ISO only. It does not matter much how you split the sensor into pixels in general - smaller pixels just record more information but with a very noisy image, there is no much information beyond some point anyway.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 31, 2013)

Pi said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Fairly simple reason for this..... assuming the same technology for reading the charge, if you make the photosite with twice the area, it will collect twice the charge, and the accuracy of the reading will be twice as accurate.....but this is only true until saturation is reached.... and that's why FF is so much better in poor light with less of an advantage in good light.
> ...



Here is my logic......
Let's say that you have two cameras, one with pixels twice the size of the other. We assume a 16 bit a/d converter. We assume that all the circuitry is of the same technology.

You take a picture of the same scene with both cameras. In the first camera there are 0 units of charge in a dark pixel and 500 units of charge in a bright white pixel... Gain is applied (multiply by 128, either digital or analog) and you end up with a 16 bit number where the last 8 bits are noise.
In the second camera there are 0 units of charge in a dark pixel and 1000 units of charge in a bright white pixel... Gain is applied (multiply by 64, either digital or analog) and you end up with a 16 bit number where the last 7 bits are noise.


----------



## Pi (Oct 31, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



That is noise per pixel, not per area. The signal in the first case will have weight 1/2 of that in the second in the final image. So you multiply by 128 but when you resize to the final output image, you divide that by 2.


----------



## jrista (Oct 31, 2013)

Pi said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



Assuming you resize. 

@Don: Pi is referring to Equivalence. He has brought it up in prior threads. The source of the theory is actually very good. Read this: http://josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm. It might clear some things up.


----------



## Pi (Oct 31, 2013)

jrista said:


> Assuming you resize.



From 24x36mm? I always do.

This has nothing to do with equivalence. It is enough to understand the fallacy for a sensor of a fixed size.


----------



## jrista (Oct 31, 2013)

Pi said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Full well capacity is really more a function of pixel area than pixel Q.E. Area is the defining factor when it comes to how much charge a pixel can hold. Increasing Q.E. might improve sensitivity, which is the rate at which photons convert to charge, but it doesn't do anything to increase the maximum charge (FWC) a pixel can contain. That is why cameras with larger sensors generally perform better than smaller sensors...they have historically had larger pixels.
> ...



Correct. I did read, and still remember, the article on equivalence. So, correct, assuming you are always using the full sensor area. There are situations where you don't, say cropping for detail. In which case, the part of my answer you _did not quote_ applies...it's a tradeoff. I am not about to say pixel size is the most important factor, however I would say it is far from a "mostly irrelevant factor." It all just depends, and you make the various tradeoffs you have to in order to get what you need so service your own personal photography best.

In the end, one could often make the argument that neither pixel size nor sensor size really matters in the end anyway, as a more significant factor in final image quality is how you process, so long as the image output size is smaller than the input size (which is by and large the most common case these days with publishing occurring on the internet far more than it occurs in print in any form).


----------



## Pi (Oct 31, 2013)

jrista said:


> I am not about to say pixel size is the most important factor, however I would say it is far from a "mostly irrelevant factor."



Let us not take this out of the context in which it was said. We were talking about noise and the large pixel fallacy. I also said that smaller pixels collect more information, that there are tech related factors, etc.


----------



## jrista (Oct 31, 2013)

Pi said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I am not about to say pixel size is the most important factor, however I would say it is far from a "mostly irrelevant factor."
> ...



Ok, fair enough.


----------



## Krob78 (Oct 31, 2013)

jrista said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


Makes sense...


----------



## pvk (Oct 31, 2013)

Lots of discussion on whether the 7DII will be better than the 1DX or 5DIII. It shows that Canon will have a formidable marketing job to do, but I think it misses the point. The 7DII may have some better features, but as a crop camera, it will never match the results of a top of the line FF camera.

I assume Canon has long decided that the main stream trend will be FF. Maybe that is why they took so long to replace the 7D.

But there are cases where you need the crop to get close enough. That is where the 7DII comes in. As a top of the line 1.6 crop camera. Now for this to work, the image quality and the ISO results must be much better than the current 7D. The price must be below the 5DIII. No need to have the weather sealable body like the 1DX, because a press photographer will not buy it any way. Make it like the 5DIII, basically making the 7DII a crop version of the 5DIII. Add some newer features that you would expect after launching it two years after the 5DIII.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 31, 2013)

pvk said:


> No need to have the weather sealable body like the 1DX, because a press photographer will not buy it any way.


My main reason for being interested in the 7DII is to use it for birds and wildlife. I don´t know what it´s like in your end of the world, but where I go we have rain, snow, dust, humidity and freezing temperatures. I´d say weather sealing is very important. The closer it´ll get to a 1DV, the happier I´ll be.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 31, 2013)

pvk said:


> No need to have the weather sealable body like the 1DX, because a press photographer will not buy it any way.



Are you aware that many, if not most, newspaper photographers are expected to buy their own gear and that the average pay for newspaper photographers is often just above the poverty level? 

Are you aware of the quality of reproduction and the typical size used in most newspapers? A 7D is more than adequate in almost all cases.

Perhaps you imagine that the majority of press photographers spend their lives jetting around the world, dodging bullets, covering Olympics or tracking down rare species in the jungle.

A typical newspaper photographer is likely to spend his or her day taking pictures of third-graders doing a class project, doing a portrait of a local business person for a Sunday profile, covering a high school basketball game and if it is a particularly exciting day, rushing across town to take pictures at a house fire. On a slow day, they may spend an afternoon at a local car lot taking pictures of used cars for the dealer's Saturday ad.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 31, 2013)

pvk said:


> No need to have the weather sealable body like the 1DX, because a press photographer will not buy it any way.



First, weather sealing does not add that much to the cost of a camera... When I shot Olympus, I had a weather sealed E-520 and ALL my lenses were sealed....and that was NOT a high-end camera.

Press photographers take pictures of things like car accidents.... and when it is raining or snowing the number of accidents pick up dramatically.. and where I live we have very wet falls and winters with temperatures that regularly drop below -20C.... and freezing rain, the worst of both, but very pretty. A sealed camera seems like a good thing for those who have to go out and take pictures.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 31, 2013)

unfocused said:


> pvk said:
> 
> 
> > No need to have the weather sealable body like the 1DX, because a press photographer will not buy it any way.
> ...


+1 and many newspapers seem to be moving away from staff photographers and towards freelance...a move which will not put more money into the pockets of the photographer.


----------



## Skirball (Oct 31, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Perhaps you imagine that the majority of press photographers spend their lives jetting around the world, dodging bullets, covering Olympics or tracking down rare species in the jungle.



Don't forget the ladies. Lots, and lots, of lay-dees.


----------



## pvk (Nov 2, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Perhaps you imagine that the majority of press photographers spend their lives jetting around the world, dodging bullets, covering Olympics or tracking down rare species in the jungle.



Ok, fair comments, let me be more clear on what I am trying to say. Canon does not actually say much about the weather sealing, at least not what I have found. Anyone has actual official information?

The information I usually find about it is that the sealing of the 1DX is far exceeding that of the 5DIII, which exceeds the sealing durability of the 7D. If you want the durability and sealing of the 1DX, you have to pay for it. 

My assumption is that the 7DII will be a (feature wise improved) crop version of the 5DIII, not of the 1DX. Otherwize it will be far too expensive, the 7DII logical price point will be below the 5DIII.


----------



## sanj (Nov 2, 2013)

Eldar said:


> To me a 7D would be a bird/wildlife backup camera to the 1DX. The most important thing for me, compared to what the current 7D provides, in order of priority:
> 1: AF. If it gets the 5DIII AF system, it will be a massive improvement.
> 2: High ISO performance. If it gets to 5DIII standard, I´ll be very happy
> 3: Dynamic range. I would love to see the DR number grow by at least 1.
> ...



Your wish will be granted.


----------



## Krob78 (Nov 2, 2013)

sanj said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > To me a 7D would be a bird/wildlife backup camera to the 1DX. The most important thing for me, compared to what the current 7D provides, in order of priority:
> ...



Agreed. That sounds reasonable and desirable. That would be a great 7D MkII and would keep its position as the flagship of the Canon Crop Fleet... It's an upgrade that makes sense and is believable...


----------



## Ruined (Nov 2, 2013)

sanj said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > To me a 7D would be a bird/wildlife backup camera to the 1DX. The most important thing for me, compared to what the current 7D provides, in order of priority:
> ...



How about the following additional wishes? 
7. Articulating touchscreen for off-angle shots and videos
8. Wifi
9. GPS
10. Retention of pop-up flash
11. 135mbps SD slot to dramatically reduce buffer fill
12. USB 3.0 camera transfer for quicker RAW photo dumps


----------



## unfocused (Nov 2, 2013)

pvk said:


> ...My assumption is that the 7DII will be a (feature wise improved) crop version of the 5DIII, not of the 1DX. Otherwise it will be far too expensive, the 7DII logical price point will be below the 5DIII.



That I agree with.

Of course, it's hard to predict a trend when only one 7D and three 5Ds have been produced, but it does seem that Canon positioned the two as basically paired versions of one another. Since the release dates vary by a couple of years it's not surprising that one model tends to leapfrog the other in certain features, but for the most part, they seem to be comparable. Which actually makes a lot of sense.

Give 5D owners a crop version for the reach and other advantages of that format but retain the same basic operational features so its easy to move from one to the other. 

Get 7D users used to the same basic feature set of the 5D so that if they decide to try full-frame they are more likely to go for the more expensive 5DIII over the entry-level 6D (that strategy worked with me, by the way).

I've long said that Canon's goal is not to move people from crop to full frame, but to sell enthusiasts, semi-pros and wedding/event photographers two bodies – one crop and one full frame. 

I think there is a outside chance Canon could produce both a 7DII that mirrors the 5D and a "7D X" that is targeted to the professional shooters that still miss the reach of the APS-H format. I don't know how large that market might be and whether it would be worth the investment for Canon to produce such a high-end crop sensor. But, regardless, the primary 7DII is likely to remain paired with the 5D as you say.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 2, 2013)

Ruined said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Sounds good to me.... I don't really care one way or the other about the flash... I find the pop-up flash on my 60D to be quite weak and if you use a large lens you get flash shadows... Pity they can't make it stick up higher....


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 2, 2013)

unfocused said:


> I've long said that Canon's goal is not to move people from crop to full frame, but to sell enthusiasts, semi-pros and wedding/event photographers two bodies – one crop and one full frame.


I agree with you. They are different tools for different needs.

About the only thing we can guess with any degree of certainty is that whatever the 7D2 is, it will be better than the 70D. The higher bound is unknown... Some features will most likely be better than a 1DX, some will be worse... New features or improvements have to be introduced somewhere, like dual pixel on a 70D or digic6 on a P/S... It does not mean a re-ordering of the Canon lineup, it's just the order that the new models were introduced.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 2, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...


The pop-up flash has no value to me. I would rather have a body with improved weather sealing and no flash. Let's hope Canon agrees to the same spec ... or even provides a positive surprise or two


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 2, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



correct me if I'm wrong, but, isn't the area set aside for the flash replaced by the wifi antennae? Isn't that one of the reasons the 6d, which is more geared towards the consumer crowd than the 7d2, didn't get a pop up flash? I thought it was something to do with the body construction (type of metal would block wifi signal and weather sealing, so they had to put the wifi antennae outside of that shell in that little nub the pop up flash would go).


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 2, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> correct me if I'm wrong, but, isn't the area set aside for the flash replaced by the wifi antennae? Isn't that one of the reasons the 6d, which is more geared towards the consumer crowd than the 7d2, didn't get a pop up flash? I thought it was something to do with the body construction (type of metal would block wifi signal and weather sealing, so they had to put the wifi antennae outside of that shell in that little nub the pop up flash would go).



Note that the 70D has a pop-up flash and WiFi....


You can put the WiFi antenna anywhere, but the top is the best position....

The GPS antenna is a lot more restrictive, the best signal comes when it is mounted on the top...

Even if the antennas are not on top, you still get a signal, just not as good. Typically the cameras are used in portrait mode and carried lens-down... so the top side/back edge is the preferred position.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 2, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > correct me if I'm wrong, but, isn't the area set aside for the flash replaced by the wifi antennae? Isn't that one of the reasons the 6d, which is more geared towards the consumer crowd than the 7d2, didn't get a pop up flash? I thought it was something to do with the body construction (type of metal would block wifi signal and weather sealing, so they had to put the wifi antennae outside of that shell in that little nub the pop up flash would go).
> ...



Again, in a non weather sealed body, I had read that somewhere, in a non weather sealed body they put wholes in the casing to allow the signal to get through --- the need to put it outside thecasing was more for weather sealing purposes, at least from what I read.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 2, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Again, in a non weather sealed body, I had read that somewhere, in a non weather sealed body they put wholes in the casing to allow the signal to get through --- the need to put it outside thecasing was more for weather sealing purposes, at least from what I read.



I think you read misinformation. The 1D X is as weather sealed as a Canon dSLR gets, and it's magnesium alloy shell has more holes than Swiss cheese...


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Again, in a non weather sealed body, I had read that somewhere, in a non weather sealed body they put wholes in the casing to allow the signal to get through --- the need to put it outside thecasing was more for weather sealing purposes, at least from what I read.
> ...



You beat me to it.....


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Again, in a non weather sealed body, I had read that somewhere, in a non weather sealed body they put wholes in the casing to allow the signal to get through --- the need to put it outside thecasing was more for weather sealing purposes, at least from what I read.
> ...



ok, color me wrong...it was a while ago i had heard that though, back when the first releases the 6d


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 2, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...


The big problem in RF is how to block signals...


----------



## Ruined (Nov 2, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> correct me if I'm wrong, but, isn't the area set aside for the flash replaced by the wifi antennae? Isn't that one of the reasons the 6d, which is more geared towards the consumer crowd than the 7d2, didn't get a pop up flash? I thought it was something to do with the body construction (type of metal would block wifi signal and weather sealing, so they had to put the wifi antennae outside of that shell in that little nub the pop up flash would go).



I'll be honest, Canon makes up a lot of BS and excuses for leaving out features either for differentiation or for cost purposes. Pop up flash, wifi, and GPS are all able to be fit in a body. Example no headphone jack on the 70D - "we ran out of room," yeah, ok... I'm sure there are absolutely no free spaces anywhere on the 70D body, lol. Cell phones 1/10th the size and 1/10th the cost of the 7D have wifi, gps, flash, headphone jack, usb port, and a whole lot more. Canon is just trying to balance 'product differentiation' and costs, but often makes up nonsensical excuses when pushed on why something was not included.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 2, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > correct me if I'm wrong, but, isn't the area set aside for the flash replaced by the wifi antennae? Isn't that one of the reasons the 6d, which is more geared towards the consumer crowd than the 7d2, didn't get a pop up flash? I thought it was something to do with the body construction (type of metal would block wifi signal and weather sealing, so they had to put the wifi antennae outside of that shell in that little nub the pop up flash would go).
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 2, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> to be honest, the pop up flash is so useless that I often wondered why it was on the original 7d. I get the pop up flash for the entry level models, the rebels and the XXD series, but a pop up flash on a prosumer model....seems like a waste of real estate....



The 7D was the first camera able to be an optical master for Speedlites (via that popup flash), and that's a very useful capability in a prosumer model. 

Of course, with the current RT system, the camera could be the master without the onboard flash - and I hope we see that someday!


----------



## noel (Nov 2, 2013)

Why only one slot, do you think?

N


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 2, 2013)

noel said:


> Why only one slot, do you think?



Either it's a rather compact model so that 2 cf slots don't fit, Canon doesn't want combined cf/sd, or (more likely) Canon plays the good ol' "professional use should be expensive" game and reserves mission-critical features like a backup slot for the 5d3+ line.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 2, 2013)

I still think single SD or CF card could cause a bottleneck in the data pipepline. If you do the calculations you'll see that 24MP at 10fps is a higher data rate than the 1DX so I doubt it will actually be that much. It is more likely to be around 23.3MP (like 5D-III) and 9fps, which would still be an improvement on the 7D. Those numbers at least seem to be inline with the capability of the dual-digic5+ architecture as seen in the 1DX.

I've seen talk of improved video capability. I hope this means in-camera HDR-video. I'm sure Canon knows what the Magic lantern guys get up to in their spare time... Surely this could be on the cards right??? Staying on the topic of video, I would be shocked if it didn't have a headphone-out jack. I think the lack of headphone jack on the 70D is a deliberate omission to allow room for differentiation with the 7D-II...

Built-in Wifi and GPS makes sense for this type of sports/action/wildlife camera. It is essential that it has a "Rate" button like 5D-III. For working action photographers this is a kick-ass addition which really speeds up your workflow.

OSD


----------



## Zv (Nov 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > to be honest, the pop up flash is so useless that I often wondered why it was on the original 7d. I get the pop up flash for the entry level models, the rebels and the XXD series, but a pop up flash on a prosumer model....seems like a waste of real estate....
> ...



The pop up flash as an optical master is actually quite useful in the 7D. It was my first time trying out off camera flash on the cheap using a 320EX. And when I moved up to radio triggers it served as my back up. When traveling it's nice to be able to leave the triggers at home and just simplifies off camera flash on the fly. I leave the pop up in optical master mode for quick portraits when out and about with a 430EX. Very compact and flexible lighting set up. I honestly miss that with the 5D, but with the Yongnuo 560III I only need one additional small radio trigger so maybe it's OK! (Still one extra thing to fumble with and put batteries in though).


----------



## dolina (Nov 4, 2013)

If the Mark II will indeed share the same AF system as the 5D Mark III and 1D X I hope they will allow for f/8 autofocus.


----------



## WPJ (Nov 4, 2013)

dolina said:


> If the Mark II will indeed share the same AF system as the 5D Mark III and 1D X I hope they will allow for f/8 autofocus.



hopefully more like 1dx, which is way better than 5d as it has a dedicated af CPU, where the 5d uses the main digic.

my hope / vote is for dedicated af CPU...


----------



## dolina (Nov 4, 2013)

WPJ said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > If the Mark II will indeed share the same AF system as the 5D Mark III and 1D X I hope they will allow for f/8 autofocus.
> ...


You can buy two 5D3s for every one 1DX.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 4, 2013)

WPJ said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > If the Mark II will indeed share the same AF system as the 5D Mark III and 1D X I hope they will allow for f/8 autofocus.
> ...


What gives you that idea?

The Digic4 chip in the 1D X is dedicated to metering, not AF (although it does feed metering data into the AF system to support face detection/tracking). 

Both the 5DIII and 1D X have a dedicated AF processor. Here's how CPN describes it for the 5DIII:

[quote author=CPN]
Achieving this speed and accuracy in the AF algorithm requires a large amount of focus data to be processed quickly. This has been done by the use of distributed processing where both a dedicated AF processor and a camera CPU process data. The dedicated AF processor is four times faster than the one found in the EOS-1D Mark IV.
[/quote]


----------



## WPJ (Nov 4, 2013)

dolina said:


> WPJ said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...


and your point is. Its a wish...and people keep saying that they are the same auto focus system but they are not.


----------



## dolina (Nov 4, 2013)

WPJ said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > WPJ said:
> ...



More Digic chips = more cash out.


----------



## WPJ (Nov 4, 2013)

dolina said:


> WPJ said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...



also equals better camera


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 4, 2013)

WPJ said:


> ...and people keep saying that they are the same auto focus system but they are not.



Actually, they are the same in terms of components - same sensor, same dedicated AF processor. As I stated above, your statement that the 5DIII lacks a dedicated AF processor is incorret. The difference is the metering system of the 1D X feeds data into the AF system to allow for face recognition and tracking (although Canon warns that using iTR may slow down AF).


----------



## Krob78 (Nov 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> WPJ said:
> 
> 
> > ...and people keep saying that they are the same auto focus system but they are not.
> ...



Simply enough, the 5D MkIII is certainly not the 1Dx... Never will be but it's a fine piece of equipment in and of it's own right... I love mine. I have room enough in my heart to love a 1Dx too! ;D


----------



## Ruined (Nov 4, 2013)

StudentOfLight said:


> I still think single SD or CF card could cause a bottleneck in the data pipepline. If you do the calculations you'll see that 24MP at 10fps is a higher data rate than the 1DX so I doubt it will actually be that much. It is more likely to be around 23.3MP (like 5D-III) and 9fps, which would still be an improvement on the 7D. Those numbers at least seem to be inline with the capability of the dual-digic5+ architecture as seen in the 1DX.



If you have a 95mbps SD card and the slot/chipset supports full speed 95mbps then single SD slot should be no problem. If an older tech slot/controller on the camera is used then it may be.

i.e. one of these:
http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Extreme-Class-Memory-SDSDXPA-032G-X46/dp/B005LFT3QG/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1383605671&sr=8-5&keywords=sd+extreme+pro


----------



## WPJ (Nov 4, 2013)

Ruined said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > I still think single SD or CF card could cause a bottleneck in the data pipepline. If you do the calculations you'll see that 24MP at 10fps is a higher data rate than the 1DX so I doubt it will actually be that much. It is more likely to be around 23.3MP (like 5D-III) and 9fps, which would still be an improvement on the 7D. Those numbers at least seem to be inline with the capability of the dual-digic5+ architecture as seen in the 1DX.
> ...



I just down loaded some CF cards and I sustained 102MB/sec bytes not bits. That's just more than 8 times your 95mbps SD cards.... Can we just stick to the better cards please.

SD where meant to be smaller and cheaper than CF


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 4, 2013)

Ruined said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > I still think single SD or CF card could cause a bottleneck in the data pipepline. If you do the calculations you'll see that 24MP at 10fps is a higher data rate than the 1DX so I doubt it will actually be that much. It is more likely to be around 23.3MP (like 5D-III) and 9fps, which would still be an improvement on the 7D. Those numbers at least seem to be inline with the capability of the dual-digic5+ architecture as seen in the 1DX.
> ...



You can't really use the number of frames per second or the number of megapixels to argue if the slot is SD or CF without considering the buffer size. Nothing states how many shots before the buffer fills or what the size of the buffer is. Make the buffer bigger and you can live a lot longer with a slower storage card...

If you want to run continuous, assuming 32Mbyte per raw image and 12FPS, you are looking at 384MBytes/sec sustained transfer speed.... that's 32 times the speed of your 95Mbit/sec SC card or 6 times the speed of a 160Mbyte/second Sandisk Extreme Pro CF card. ( Read speed is 160MB/sec, write speed is 65MB/sec). Whatever technology they put in the 7D2 for card slot, it is the buffer size that has the most impact.....

If you assumed a 2 second burst and a buffer big enough to hold 2 seconds at 12FPS:
SD - 25 frames and 64 seconds to clear it
CF - 29 frames and 12 seconds to clear it

Does anyone really think that Canon would make a semi-pro camera that can sit there for over a minute trying to clear the buffer? The smart money is on CF.


----------



## WPJ (Nov 5, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



don great info, but really there is nothing from stopping them from putting 2GB or more in for buffer really that's what I think it should be min.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 5, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



Hi Don, Thanks for correcting me on number of cards and valuable info on buffer size.

I can be quite lengthy in my replies sometimes and browser ends up timing-out, so I type responses in text editor and cut+paste into the forum. Sometimes I try to rearrange sentences and fail horribly. The first line my paragraph has nothing to do with rest of the paragraph. The rest of the paragraph is discussing DD5+ capability and the shooting speed of the rumored 7D-II it has nothing to do with number of cards. Apologies.


----------

