# EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 27, 2014)

```
<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=15946"></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=15946">Tweet</a></div>
<p>We (<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_7dmk2.html" target="_blank">and others</a>) keep hearing that the EOS 7D Mark II is the next camera body to be announced and we should expect it in Q2 of 2014, which would be April, May or June.</p>
<p>As of yet, there has been no solid specs for the camera outside of it setting a new standard in APS-C performance along with cutting edge video features.</p>
<p>We’re waiting for the usual sources to speak up, which would happen soon if the Q2 announcement rumors are true.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## tomscott (Feb 27, 2014)

I have a feeling it won't be. I think it could be the SL2 :-[


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 27, 2014)

Seeing as the D4s is coming with a 'new' 16 mp sensor, I'm going to be brave and guess the 7DII will also be 16 mp, aps class leading low light performance, very fast and no pop up flash. See you in the second quarter.


----------



## slclick (Feb 27, 2014)

Here we go again


----------



## thepancakeman (Feb 27, 2014)

slclick said:


> Here we go again



So you're saying this is the 7D Mark II rumor Mark II? ;D

I'm cautiously optimistic--maybe they're targeting getting it out in time for the World Cup?


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 27, 2014)

So, this is a rumor that there will soon be a rumor?


----------



## 20Dave (Feb 27, 2014)

So you're saying there's a chance... ???


----------



## -Jarred- (Feb 27, 2014)

It'll be 70D bits in the current 7D body. 9fps. Bang, MkII and profits


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 27, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> So, this is a rumor that there will soon be a rumor?



It is a discussion as to the accuracy of a rumour that there may soon be a rumour of a possible announcement that there may be a release of specifications in advance of a product release.

Translation: nobody knows


----------



## RichM (Feb 27, 2014)

Hurry up already, Canon!! I may have to break down and just get the 1DX if you don't 
Joking aside, my 7d is feeling older and older the more I shoot with the 5d3. I like the combo (7d,5d3), but... that 1DX rental has me craving something new.


----------



## 2n10 (Feb 27, 2014)

20Dave said:


> So you're saying there's a chance... ???



What it says is there is a definite probability of a possible maybe.


----------



## 20Dave (Feb 27, 2014)

RichM said:


> Hurry up already, Canon!! I may have to break down and just get the 1DX if you don't
> Joking aside, my 7d is feeling older and older the more I shoot with the 5d3. I like the combo (7d,5d3), but... that 1DX rental has me craving something new.



I'm very glad that I bought a 5D3 a year ago rather than waiting for the immanent (at that time) 7D2.


----------



## mStevens (Feb 27, 2014)

This is so frustrating. How long has it been that we keep hearing that "next month", "next quarter", "end-of-year", "the beggining of the year" there may be an annoucement for the new 7D. . The last time we thought we would hear somthing in March... now its 2nd quarter.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 27, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Seeing as the D4s is coming with a 'new' 16 mp sensor, I'm going to be brave and guess the 7DII will also be 16 mp, aps class leading low light performance, very fast and no pop up flash. See you in the second quarter.


Please God hear our prayers. Only 16 megapixel camera with ISO 3200 without noise bothering, costing less than $ 2000.


----------



## jklick (Feb 27, 2014)

I thought that the DigitalRev Blog had a good post about the 7D replacement.

http://www.digitalrev.com/article/10-camera-predictions-of-2014/MTk3NzMwMDgz


----------



## CTJohn (Feb 28, 2014)

20Dave said:


> So you're saying there's a chance... ???


Just when I thought they couldn't possibly be any dumber, they go and do something like this... and totally redeem themselves!


----------



## distant.star (Feb 28, 2014)

.
What I'm hearing is that when they finally do produce a 7D2...

Anyone who buys one will also get a free toaster!!

Now, that's marketing.


----------



## BL (Feb 28, 2014)

CTJohn said:


> 20Dave said:
> 
> 
> > So you're saying there's a chance... ???
> ...



quite possibly one of the greatest films, ever! i was thinking the same exact thing ;D


----------



## ME (Feb 28, 2014)

There is a 100% chance that the 7dII will or will not possibly be released in the 2nd,3rd, or 4th quarter, depending of course on weather conditions and the alignment of the planets. If not, maybe or maybe not, 2015 will possibly see the release of the 7dIII, skipping over the 7dII. Depending on how many rumors there are, of course. CR 0.75. Maybe.


----------



## candc (Feb 28, 2014)

jklick said:


> I thought that the DigitalRev Blog had a good post about the 7D replacement.
> 
> http://www.digitalrev.com/article/10-camera-predictions-of-2014/MTk3NzMwMDgz



I got tired of waiting for the 7dii and bought a 70d for the interim figuring I would use it in the meantime and then sell it for the 7dii. I am not sure I want to get rid of it now unless the 7dii offers something much better and I don't mean a couple megapixels more or a couple fps faster.


----------



## Richard8971 (Feb 28, 2014)

The 7D2 was past "due" a couple of years ago. I'm not saying that Canon won't make a 7D replacement but the firmware update seems like Canon was trying to appease the mob while they were figuring out what to do. I love my 7D and I believe that a replacement would be a top seller, provided it not only was fast but also reigned as a low noise camera as well. I would prefer that Canon kept (or dropped) the MP and concentrated on image quality over more megapixels. 

It does seem likely that this is not the year for a 7D replacement. I think the 70D is poised to compete with the best Nikon crop sensor offering, the D7100. Canon may view the 70D as they did the 6D. It offered some improvement over the 5D2 in a newer body. But who knows?

D


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 28, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Seeing as the D4s is coming with a 'new' 16 mp sensor, I'm going to be brave and guess the 7DII will also be 16 mp, aps class leading low light performance, very fast and no pop up flash. See you in the second quarter.
> ...



I'd rather have 24, 32 or even 72MP. More resolution and less noise that way.


----------



## slclick (Feb 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



And then Canon makes it's real money on selling you lenses which the sensor won't outresolve!


----------



## sanj (Feb 28, 2014)

Is this even news?


----------



## jrista (Feb 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > So, this is a rumor that there will soon be a rumor?
> ...




I.E. *Rumormongering*


----------



## RGF (Feb 28, 2014)

ME said:


> There is a 100% chance that the 7dII will or will not possibly be released in the 2nd,3rd, or 4th quarter, depending of course on weather conditions and the alignment of the planets. If not, maybe or maybe not, 2015 will possibly see the release of the 7dIII, skipping over the 7dII. Depending on how many rumors there are, of course. CR 0.75. Maybe.



I think you would do well as a weather forecaster


----------



## RGF (Feb 28, 2014)

sanj said:


> Is this even news?


yes because we replied, read it


----------



## Viper28 (Feb 28, 2014)

slclick said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



I would prefer the 16-18mpx low noise, high DR option myself. Keep it at 8-fps but improve the AF so that 8-fps in AI-Servo is totally reliable (cos it isn't now).

On the lens front, I'm not sure its in Canon's interest to go high mpx. You could argue that the more mpx you have the harder you can crop and hence the less need to by those expensive super telephoto's :


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 28, 2014)

Viper28 said:


> I would prefer the 16-18mpx low noise, high DR option myself.



For the millionth time, lower pixel counts do NOT mean lower noise and higher DR! In fact, the other way is more likely.


----------



## jrista (Feb 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



That's a misconception. If you account for noise as a factor of total sensor area, it doesn't really matter how large or small your pixel are. The expectation is that you are downsampling any and all of those sensors to some common output size...i.e. the same magnification.

Otherwise, smaller pixels are always going to have more noise at the pixel level. Any technology you might apply to smaller pixels is applicable to larger pixels. Any potential technological gains you might have that allow smaller pixels are only going to make bigger pixels better. In no way can smaller pixels be less noisy than larger pixels. They may resolve more detail, but assuming Q.E. remains roughly the same, that detail WILL be noisier. 


All else being equal, if you have 6 micron pixels and 3 micron pixels, the 3 micron pixels are going to have 1/4 the FWC. A 6 micron pixel might have 60,000e- max charge at ISO 100, where as a 3 micron pixel is going to have 15,000e- max charge. Since noise is the square root of the signal, you have 244e- noise with 6 micron pixels, and 122e- noise with 3 micron pixels. In other words, you have a 244:1 SNR with 6 micron pixels, and a 122:1 SNR with 3 micron pixels.

The only way to make those smaller pixels equal to the larger pixels is to downsample by a factor of two.


----------



## The_Sinister (Feb 28, 2014)

Although I have been waiting to upgrade from the T3i to the 7d Mark ii for the longest time, if Canon continues uninspiring body upgrades, here is what I am predicting:

18mp sensor 
70d af
20fps
1080p 60fps video recording
1 CF slot
a tad more weather sealing
Last but not least, the famous "Mark II" badge


----------



## nicku (Feb 28, 2014)

*I have a question :*

With the new 7D Mark 2 on the horizon..... Nikon will launch the the illusive D400 or they will let Canon reign supreme over the pro APS-C segment?? The Nikon line died with the D300s?

Opinions...... ?


----------



## traveller (Feb 28, 2014)

jrista said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



What's the problem with having a high resolution sensor that allows detailed images at low ISO and then downsampling to reduce noise when you need to used higher ISOs? 

I'm asking because you seem to know your stuff and I'd like to get this cleared up once and for all!


----------



## traveller (Feb 28, 2014)

People seem to be suggesting (not just on this forum) that Canon are scratching their heads over the potential specifications of a 7D Mk II. I'd have thought that it was pretty obvious -an APS-C sensor version of the 5D Mk III with a higher frame rate (i.e. 8-12fps). 

The elephant in the room is whether the 20MP sensor from the 70D is good enough for their "flagship APS-C camera" or whether Canon are waiting to launch a new generation of sensors in the 7D Mk II. The more time passes from the 70D's introduction, the more likely I think the 7D Mk II will be the launch vehicle for the new generation of sensor; I would therefore expect any announcement to be just prior to Photokina. [Sod's law they will announce it next month and make this prediction wrong! :]


----------



## expatinasia (Feb 28, 2014)

traveller said:


> People seem to be suggesting (not just on this forum) that Canon are scratching their heads over the potential specifications of a 7D Mk II. I'd have thought that it was pretty obvious -an APS-C sensor version of the 5D Mk III with a higher frame rate (i.e. 8-12fps).
> 
> The elephant in the room is whether the 20MP sensor from the 70D is good enough for their "flagship APS-C camera" or whether Canon are waiting to launch a new generation of sensors in the 7D Mk II. The more time passes from the 70D's introduction, the more likely I think the 7D Mk II will be the launch vehicle for the new generation of sensor; I would therefore expect any announcement to be just prior to Photokina. [Sod's law they will announce it next month and make this prediction wrong! :]



Purely speculation but I would imagine one of Canon's biggest concerns is a new 7D Mark II potentially eating into 1D X and the big white market. They need to make it attractive enough, but not so attractive to take away any of the market from their flagship body and lenses.


----------



## Gorku (Feb 28, 2014)

The Canon 7D Mark II will come out just after the Nikon D400 comes out ....... ;D


----------



## jonjt (Feb 28, 2014)

After all this time, I would expect the 7Dmkii to be a vehicle to introduce new sensor technology to the market. It's the only reasonable explinatin I can think of for the time that has ellapsed between the 7D's release and now. I'd almost say that Canon has to release a body with a drastic change in sensor technology, if they are going to compete with Sony and Nikon. 


If they just slap some derivative of the 70D's sensor in the 7Dmkii, I think a lot of people are going to ditch their Canon bodies.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 28, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re waiting for the usual sources to speak up, which would happen soon if the Q2 announcement rumors are true.


So am I ... this has been a long wait ... hope the MK II lives up to its hype and expectations.


----------



## Canon1 (Feb 28, 2014)

Honestly... I vote that this should be the last cr1 released on this body. These are no longer becoming speculative rumor, but rather redundant and laughable. (I think we were there 12 months ago...) Dig in deep CR... find a cr2!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...


24, 32 or even 72 megapixel in APS-C sensor? : Why bother if already available Nokia Lumia 1020 with 42 megapixel?  Which lenses can truly "see" 72 megapixel resolution in APS-C sensor? ??? ??? ??? Maybe Zeiss Otus stoped down 4 stops?


----------



## nvettese (Feb 28, 2014)

RichM said:


> Hurry up already, Canon!! I may have to break down and just get the 1DX if you don't
> Joking aside, my 7d is feeling older and older the more I shoot with the 5d3. I like the combo (7d,5d3), but... that 1DX rental has me craving something new.



I'm still using a 20D... I really want this camera, like yesterday. Seriously though. I hope that this camera is every bit the camera the original was when it is introduced. I hope that Canon doesn't screw around with this. If they do, I'll be going Fuji


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 28, 2014)

As a current 7D owner, I'd need to see a few things to upgrade:

1. 16mp sensor with minimal AA filter. If they cram more mega pixels into the same sized sensor, I'm just not interested.
2. Improved low ISO noise levels and dynamic range
3. 10 FPS
4. A focus system based on the 5D III
5. Dual SD slots (or CF, either one)
6. Flip out screen
7. 70D movie capabilities
8. MF adjust on the wide and long focal lengths


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 28, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> As a current 7D owner, I'd need to see a few things to upgrade:
> 
> 1. 16mp sensor with minimal AA filter. If they cram more mega pixels into the same sized sensor, I'm jut not interested.
> 2. Improved low ISO noise levels and dynamic range
> ...



I think you're likely to see 3, 4 (at least partly), 7 and 8. The 7D II will have more MP than the 7D, at least 20 MP, possibly 24 MP.


----------



## jiphoto (Feb 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > As a current 7D owner, I'd need to see a few things to upgrade:
> ...


I hope they manage 2 as well... and avoid 5 unless they do dual CF, which I doubt. Canon's surprised us before with their lack of innovation, though, so I guess it wouldn't be a huge surprise for the 7D2 to have very little ISO improvements.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 28, 2014)

jiphoto said:


> Canon's surprised us before with their lack of innovation, though, so I guess it wouldn't be a huge surprise for the 7D2 to have very little ISO improvements.



That's true if you define innovation solely as _improvement in low ISO DR_. Most people have a broader definition of innovation...


----------



## gratomlin (Feb 28, 2014)

as we are seeing more and more mobile phones capable of recording in 4K, this would be my wish list

1. 20+ mp
2. 10 FPS +
3. A focus system based on the 5D III
4. Dual card slots CF and SD
5. 4K video with auto focus
6. built in Wi-Fi

then i'll be interseted


----------



## Viper28 (Feb 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Viper28 said:
> 
> 
> > I would prefer the 16-18mpx low noise, high DR option myself.
> ...



Hmm strange then that the Canon 5D and 40D were both approx 10mpx cameras of the same generation but the IQ, noise and DR of the 5D is clearly better than the 40D (at a given ISO). Or if you prefer the Nikon D300 and D3 both c. 12mpx cameras of the same generation and guess what the D3 has better IQ, noise and DR! So regardless of the maths or anything else, when the chips are down large pixels seem to outperform small ones


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 28, 2014)

Viper28 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Viper28 said:
> ...



Notice that Lee Jay stated lower pixel counts, and you provided examples of pairs of sensors with the same pixel counts. What's your point? 

The cameras in your pairs have the same number of pixels, but the ones that have lower noise and better DR have BIGGER pixels.

Make sense?


----------



## jrista (Feb 28, 2014)

traveller said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Oh, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It just won't give you LESS noise. Assuming we have two APS-C sensors, if we view them a 100%, the image taken with the sensor with smaller pixels will be noisier. If we sample them to the same size, noise will be equal. The sensor with smaller pixels will be crisper when scaled to the same size, but there won't be any real difference in noise.

Why? Because both sensors have the same total physical area. Assuming the same output magnification, the only thing that matters is sensor area, not pixel size. 

This is a different argument than FF vs. APS-C. In the case of FF vs. APS-C, you can look at it a couple of ways. There is equivalence. You frame the same scene identically with both FF and APS-C (doesn't matter if you get closer with FF or use a longer lens). You need a narrower aperture with FF in order to achieve the same DOF as APS-C. You end up with the same amount of noise for the same output magnification. Again, total sensor area matters here, however you have normalized all factors, so noise relative to output magnification is going to be similar. 

However, I don't think that is generally how photographers think. In my experience, photographers who want the same framing with FF as their APS-C counterparts ALSO want a thinner DOF and blurrier background. That is especially the case with those who do portraiture, weddings, studio work, etc. with shorter and medium focal lengths. In that case, FF is always going to be vastly superior to APS-C. Not only do you have greater total sensor area, but you have larger pixels AND a faster aperture. No contest. Smaller pixels on a smaller sensor cannot compete in any way, shape, or form.

In any case, in none of the above scenarios will smaller pixels give you BETTER noise characteristics. They may allow sharper images, but from a noise standpoint, you at best can get the same noise performance out of smaller pixels for the same sensor size. Smaller pixels on a smaller sensor, in common use cases they will never be as good as larger pixels on a larger sensor, and at best they will only be "as good".


----------



## jrista (Feb 28, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > People seem to be suggesting (not just on this forum) that Canon are scratching their heads over the potential specifications of a 7D Mk II. I'd have thought that it was pretty obvious -an APS-C sensor version of the 5D Mk III with a higher frame rate (i.e. 8-12fps).
> ...



This is such an old and tired argument. Canon has nothing to fear from the 7D II stealing from the 1D X. The 1D X is going to be a superior camera in every respect. If someone can afford it and wants the best quality they can get, they are going to get the 1D X. In my previous comment, I explain why. Ultimately, noise is more about sensor area than pixel size. When it comes to pixel peeping, pixel size matters, but pixel peeping isn't photography...it's just a waste of time. FF sensors have more total area than APS-C sensors. For identically framed subjects, that means FF always has the potential to gather more light. More light, less noise. If you choose to stop down, then that is an artistic or technical choice, not a limitation of the technology.

In no way, regardless of what features Canon puts into the 7D II or how good they are, will it ever really steal sales away from the 1D X. On the contrary, by making the 7D II as good as they possibly can at the cheapest price point they can, it will GREATLY increase their sales. The simple fact of the matter is many, many people would probably LOVE to have a 1D X, they simply cannot afford it. The biggest thing stealing sales away from the 1D X is it's price. A feature-rich, highly capable "Mini 1D X" in the 7D II would give all those people a far more affordable option that is in reach...increasing total DSLR sales.


----------



## Viper28 (Feb 28, 2014)

yes perfect. My original point was that I would prefer less larger pixels because IMHO larger pixels mean less noise etc. The point of comparing the SAME generation / mpx sensors, one APC-C and the other FF proves that point in the real world. Both Canon and Nikon are as close as they can be in all but pixel size. Lee Jay is suggesting exactly the opposite in that more (smaller) pixels would provide less noise


----------



## jrista (Feb 28, 2014)

Viper28 said:


> yes perfect. My original point was that I would prefer less larger pixels because IMHO larger pixels mean less noise etc. The point of comparing the SAME generation / mpx sensors, one APC-C and the other FF proves that point in the real world. Both Canon and Nikon are as close as they can be in all but pixel size. Lee Jay is suggesting exactly the opposite in that more (smaller) pixels would provide less noise



If you are not changing sensor size, then more/fewer pixels doesn't mean much. Assuming you are using the full frame. If you are reach limited, then smaller pixels have a definite and intrinsic value...you can crop more, and still have good detail. You _definitely_ *won't *have less noise...you'll have more noise, however cropping higher resolution detail with more noise is often better than cropping lower resolution detail with less noise. Especially in the APS-C world.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



And noise reduction software is dramatically better at removing noise and preserving detail than block averaging is. Plus, smaller pixels mean a higher-corner-frequency AA filter. Both effects mean that the smaller pixels give you lower noise and better resolving power in the same light and exposure.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 1, 2014)

Viper28 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Viper28 said:
> ...



Large sensors out-perform small sensors. Small pixels out-perform large pixels as long as you don't get so small that the smaller pixels are too small for the manufacturing technology making them.

The 70D, even with 40MP out-performs the 7D with 18MP. The G15 with its teeny, tiny pixels out-performs the 1Dx in DR even with its enormous pixels.

The idea that small pixels are somehow bad is long, long out-of-date.


----------



## jrista (Mar 1, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> And noise reduction software is dramatically better at removing noise and preserving detail than block averaging is. Plus, smaller pixels mean a higher-corner-frequency AA filter. Both effects mean that the smaller pixels give you lower noise and better resolving power in the same light and exposure.



Noise reduction software applies to all images, regardless of pixel size. You can't bring software into the hardware equation here. Sensors are hardware. From a hardware standpoint, smaller pixels/bigger pixels, so long as the total sensor area is the same, it really doesn't matter. 

Trying to bring in post-processing aspects brings in a massive amount of subjectivity into the discussion, and then it becomes impossible to guage anything. Person A might use Topaz DeNoise, Person B might use Neat Image, Person C might just use LR/PS built in NR. Let's keep the argument to concrete information that we can all agree on. Sensor area/output magnification. That's all that would really matter. A smaller sensor has the potential to produce sharper results, but overall, noise is going to be the same (at best). 



Lee Jay said:


> Viper28 said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



First, I really have to quash this idea, because it is fundamentally WRONG: The 70D is NOT NOT NOT a 40mp camera!!!!!!!!!!!!! The 70D has 20.2 million pixels. Only the center 80% of those pixels (16.16mp) have split _*PHOTODIODES*_. A photodiode and a pixel are not the same thing. The 70D has, only has, always has had, and will only ever have, 20.2 million PIXELS. The 16.16 million center rectangle of pixels have split photodiodes. There are 32.32 million photodiodes packed into 16.16 million pixels, which comprise the center 80% of the sensors 20.2 million pixels in total.

When it comes to DPAF, photodiodes != pixels. DPAF pixels have two photodiodes, *but they are still one pixel.* The split photodiodes are underneath the microlens and color filter...so you could never read 32.32 million pixels out independently and have it be anything better or different than reading those 16.16 million pixels out. The split halves are the same pixel, under the same filter and same microlens. If they were separate pixels, DPAF simply wouldn't work. The entire point of the technology is that you can read light from each half of the lens, and therefor detect phase differential, from each and every individual PIXEL. The 70D has 20.2 million pixels. Only. In which case, the gap between the 7D and 70D is 2.2mp...which is practically trivial, since both sensors have roughly the same total area. (The 70D's real advantage is that it is actually slightly larger in dimensions than the 7D...more total area, more total light, albeit a nearly trivial "more".) 



As for the pixels. I've never said they are bad. Small pixels out-RESOLVE large pixels, they do not necessarily out-PERFORM large pixels. But small pixels can only out-resolve large pixels in certain circumstances. Sometimes, having more pixels for identical framing means large pixels can effectively outresolve smaller pixels...because you can either use a longer lens, or get closer, and still achieve the same framing. If resolving power is all that matters to you, and you have excellent skill with noise reduction (which is arguably _more difficult_ to apply to images made from smaller pixels than images made from larger pixels), then smaller pixels will certainly be better for your use case.

Smaller pixels will always _outresolve _larger pixels, but they do not normally outperform larger pixels. The only case where smaller pixels might literally outperform larger pixels is if the smaller pixels had considerably better technology than the larger pixels. If you packed in ultra high Q.E. silicon materials (i.e. black silicon), ultra low noise readout (i.e. slower frequency readout, thermal cooling), backside illumination, high power microlenses and double microlens layers, etc. then sure, you could produce smaller pixels that might be capable of outperforming larger pixels....for a time... But the same technology can always be applied to larger pixels. On a normalized basis, where the technology field is flat, (and where you don't assume some specific post processing software is used to change the output of the sensor), smaller pixels _cannot _perform --> _*better *_<-- than larger pixels. At best, they could perform as well, at worst...well, they would perform worse.

Pixel performance is a fairly complex thing. I challenge you to pit G15 sports, wildlife, and bird photos against the same kinds of photos from the 1D X. I'm willing to bet good money that, assuming you find work from skilled photographers who actually know how to effectively work the equipment in hand, you will NEVER find any G15 images that are better than 1D X images. The G15 may have greater DR per pixel, but the 1D X _*trounces *_it in terms of sensor area.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > And noise reduction software is dramatically better at removing noise and preserving detail than block averaging is. Plus, smaller pixels mean a higher-corner-frequency AA filter. Both effects mean that the smaller pixels give you lower noise and better resolving power in the same light and exposure.
> ...



And it works way better when there is more detail in the original.



> You can't bring software into the hardware equation here.



Sure I can. The entire process, from optics to processing, works together to produce the final image.



> Sensors are hardware. From a hardware standpoint, smaller pixels/bigger pixels, so long as the total sensor area is the same, it really doesn't matter.



Then why not have just one enormous pixel?



> As for the pixels. I've never said they are bad. Small pixels out-RESOLVE large pixels, they do not necessarily out-PERFORM large pixels.



Not necessarily, but usually.



> But small pixels can only out-resolve large pixels in certain circumstances.



Virtually every circumstance.



> Smaller pixels will always _outresolve _larger pixels, but they do not normally outperform larger pixels. The only case where smaller pixels might literally outperform larger pixels is if the smaller pixels had considerably better technology than the larger pixels.



Nope.



> Pixel performance is a fairly complex thing. I challenge you to pit G15 sports, wildlife, and bird photos against the same kinds of photos from the 1D X.



The 1DX will win because of a bigger sensor and bigger optics, not because of larger pixels. If it had the G15's pixels, it would do even better.


----------



## jrista (Mar 1, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Studies have shown that the lower color fidelity of smaller pixels (as enforced by a lower actual charge level, which requires a higher gain at all ISO settings than larger pixels) poses specific problems for NR. Color blotchiness, specifically, becomes a problem MUCH sooner when performing NR on images taken with smaller pixels. 



Lee Jay said:


> > You can't bring software into the hardware equation here.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I can. The entire process, from optics to processing, works together to produce the final image.



Your convoluting the issue by bringing in software. Software is a highly subjective matter. As far as I am concerned, as far as this discussion goes, software does not apply. Too many options, too many techniques, too many results.

And, again, anything you can apply to images taken with sensors with smaller pixels can be applied to sensors taken with larger pixels. There is no specific advantage to sensors with smaller pixels as far as software is concerned. It can effectively be reduced to a constant in the equation. 



Lee Jay said:


> > Sensors are hardware. From a hardware standpoint, smaller pixels/bigger pixels, so long as the total sensor area is the same, it really doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why not have just one enormous pixel?



I'm not even going to justify this with a response.



Lee Jay said:


> > As for the pixels. I've never said they are bad. Small pixels out-RESOLVE large pixels, they do not necessarily out-PERFORM large pixels.
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, but usually.



Just factoring in pixel size, always. If you factor in more than pixel size, such as AA filter, then sure. But that's an additional mark AGAINST smaller pixels. It's harder to create an AA filter that performs ideally for smaller pixels than for lager pixels. That is evident by the rather wide range of AA filter strengths for APS-C cameras (just look at DPR sample images and look at how widely moire varies....where as with larger sensors, the variation is much less.) 



Lee Jay said:


> > But small pixels can only out-resolve large pixels in certain circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> Virtually every circumstance.



Wrong. When it comes to identical framing, more pixels will always win, in which case full frame sensors with larger pixels will trounce an APS-C sensor with smaller pixels. TROUNCE.



Lee Jay said:


> > Smaller pixels will always _outresolve _larger pixels, but they do not normally outperform larger pixels. The only case where smaller pixels might literally outperform larger pixels is if the smaller pixels had considerably better technology than the larger pixels.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.



Prove it. (BTW, the image below? It doesn't prove it. ;P)



Lee Jay said:


> > Pixel performance is a fairly complex thing. I challenge you to pit G15 sports, wildlife, and bird photos against the same kinds of photos from the 1D X.
> 
> 
> 
> The 1DX will win because of a bigger sensor and bigger optics, not because of larger pixels. If it had the G15's pixels, it would do even better.



The images above actually prove _my _point. The smaller pixels are considerably noisier. They do have more detail, but they are a lot noisier. Your original comment was that smaller pixels were less noisy. That is completely false. Your own images clearly prove they are far noisier. 

When it comes to identical output magnification, again your images prove my point. The first column of images clearly demonstrates that the lower image has less noise, but roughly the same detail, as the upper image, however there is definitely more noise in the upper image that comes along with its very slight edge in detail. 

Smaller pixels may resolve more than larger pixels, but they will never have less noise than larger pixels, given the same magnification.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 1, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> The G15 with its teeny, tiny pixels out-performs the 1Dx in DR even with its enormous pixels.



Yes, that G15 is really beating the pants off the 1D X in terms of DR. Wait, I'm wrong. For a minute there, I thought DR was like golf where lower numbers were better. Oops. :


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 1, 2014)

Canon disappoint with nothing new (the EOS 1200D is old tech dressed up) at The Photography Show, Birmingham, UK which is really busy. Nikon have the D4s, Olympus have the OM-D E-M10 on sale through dealers at the show Canon seem to be focused on the C500 with Codex and have some double discount offers on the 5D MK3 £300 cash back, 7D £ 200, EOS 700D £100, EF 24-70mm f2.8L II USM £ 420, EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II USM £ 420 and a bunch of other lenses. The Speedlite 600EX-RT also had a £ 120 double cash back. The cash backs are via Canon. 

The stand is busy but not like Nikon.


----------



## Tripod (Mar 2, 2014)

I been following the various postings on the mythical 7D MkII, over the last eighteen months or so and I finally said enough was enough and last week I pulled the trigger on a Gripped 70D. I am now so pleased that I have the 7D MkII monkey off my back, I can now go out and enjoy using my new 70D. 

The 7D MkII will more than likely have a similar processor to the 70D, although the 70D version will have been hobbled a little so as to make the 7D MkII look good. The 7D MkII will probably have 4k video which doesn't really excite me too much, as I prefer stills photography. All in all and whenever it arrives it will be a wonderful camera. Perhaps when it does eventually arrive, I just might think about a trade with my then old 70D.

Man is it good to breath again 8)


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 2, 2014)

Tripod said:


> I been following the various postings on the mythical 7D MkII, over the last eighteen months or so and I finally said enough was enough and last week I pulled the trigger on a Gripped 70D. I am now so pleased that I have the 7D MkII monkey off my back, I can now go out and enjoy using my new 70D.
> The 7D MkII will more than likely have a similar processor to the 70D, although the 70D version will have been hobbled a little so as to make the 7D MkII look good. The 7D MkII will probably have 4k video which doesn't really excite me too much, as I prefer stills photography. All in all and whenever it arrives it will be a wonderful camera. Perhaps when it does eventually arrive, I just might think about a trade with my then old 70D.
> Man is it good to breath again 8)


Welcome to the forum. Yes, currently 70D is a better choice for most uses. Few people really need to do 8 shots per second in rain or sandstorm. While 7D does not have a direct replacement, 70D is eating the sales of her older sister. :


----------



## Sanaraken (Mar 2, 2014)

This 7DII announcement is whats keeping me from getting the 70D.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 2, 2014)

Sanaraken said:


> This 7DII announcement is whats keeping me from getting the 70D.


If my 60D died tomorrow, I'd get a 70D. At least to me, it's not enough of an upgrade to go for... I keep waiting for the 7D2....


----------



## mkabi (Mar 2, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Welcome to the forum. Yes, currently 70D is a better choice for most uses. Few people really need to do 8 shots per second in rain or sandstorm. While 7D does not have a direct replacement, 70D is eating the sales of her older sister. :



You dont' have to be in the rain or a sandstorm to reap the benefits of a 7D's tank like build.
At least, this guy would have benefitted from it:
Wedding Photographer Fail

And, it truly is a trouper.... check this out:
Canon 7D - Hardcore Durability Test


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 2, 2014)

mkabi said:


> And, it truly is a trouper.... check this out:
> Canon 7D - Hardcore Durability Test



WOW!


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> When it comes to identical framing, more pixels will always win,....


Which is exactly what I've been saying.



> in which case full frame sensors with larger pixels will trounce an APS-C sensor with smaller pixels. TROUNCE.



Try to stay on topic. We're talking about smaller pixels, not larger sensors.



> The images above actually prove _my _point. The smaller pixels are considerably noisier. They do have more detail, but they are a lot noisier. Your original comment was that smaller pixels were less noisy. That is completely false. Your own images clearly prove they are far noisier.



My point was that smaller pixels on the same size sensor, make better images, even in noise performance. And my image does show that.

When it comes to identical output magnification, again your images prove my point.[/quote]

The right-column is at the same output magnification too - and the smaller pixels have obliterated the large pixels.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The G15 with its teeny, tiny pixels out-performs the 1Dx in DR even with its enormous pixels.
> ...



1Dx: 11.2 stops at base ISO: http://sensorgen.info/CanonEOS-1D_X.html
G15: 11.5 stops at base ISO: http://sensorgen.info/CanonPowershot_G15.html


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 2, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



And according to DxO's measurements,

1D X: 11.77 stops at base ISO
G15: 11.52 stops at base ISO

But the bottom line is that it's wash - 1/3 stop either way, and the direction of the difference varies by the source of the data. 

Also, you stated that the G15 'out-performs' the 1D X…but you neglected to qualify that statement with 'at base ISO' - and those base ISOs are different (ISO 80 for the G15, ISO 100 for the 1D X). 

From the data in your the tables you linked, at the same ISO the 1D X has the advantage…and it's an advantage that gets progressively larger as ISO is increased. Maybe you have the same attitude that the DxOMark Score is based on - only base ISO matters. Have you ever raised your ISO setting above the base ISO? If so, stating that, "The G15 ... out-performs the 1Dx in DR," is pretty hypocritical, when even at ISO 100 that's not true, and starting at ISO 800 the 1D X has a 2-stop advantage.


----------



## philmoz (Mar 2, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> The 1DX will win because of a bigger sensor and bigger optics, not because of larger pixels. If it had the G15's pixels, it would do even better.



Sorry; but that just looks like you've taken an area of the G15 that was in focus due to the greater DOF of the small sensor, and compared it to an out-of-focus area from the 1DX.

Proves nothing.

Phil.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I am at a loss here. I don't understand what this has to do with a 7DII announcement rumour...... 

don't make me post more squirrel pictures


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 2, 2014)

The Photography Show Update: 

Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Fuji & Panasonic all have show only or show better discounts. Spoke at length to a couple of sales guys I know at Camera World and Calumet and they both said sales of Olympus and Fuji CSC cameras were really buoyant the Olympus OM-D E-M1 was really doing well along with good early adoption of the OM-D E-M10. The three dealers Calumet, Camera World and London Camera Exchange seemed busy all the time with eager purchasers. 

Canon was less busy than Nikon with the Nikon stand seeing the most interest for the Df and the D4s but still good activity for the D800 / D610. 
The Canon stand seemed to have the focus on the 5dMKIII, 1dx and the 70d

Had to succumb to the deal for the EF 100 f2.8L Macro IS USM


----------



## jrista (Mar 2, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to identical framing, more pixels will always win,....
> ...



The right-column is at the same output magnification too - and the smaller pixels have obliterated the large pixels.
[/quote]

Assuming identical sensor size, then the only benefit of smaller pixels is the potential for higher resolution. But there is absolutely no way that smaller pixels are less noisy. Not a chance. Your own sample images more than prove that, and in the same output magnification scenario, there is only a very small difference: the top image is definitely noisier!

There is no way on earth, within the realm of reality and facts, that you can claim smaller pixels are less noisy. It just isn't the case. Smaller pixels may resolve more, but they are noisier. In terms of same output magnification, at best you get the same amount of noise from two identically sized sensors with different pixel sizes...but you still cannot improve the amount of noise with smaller pixels. Because noise is intrinsic to the SIGNAL, which really has nothing to do with how big the sensor pixels are...only how large the region of the image circle that is being resolved by the sensor is.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 2, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I am at a loss here. I don't understand what this has to do with a 7DII announcement rumour......
> 
> don't make me post more squirrel pictures



Not sure...maybe the point is if the 7DII has teeny tiny G15-sized pixels it'll have maybe-ever-so-slightly more DR at base ISO thaN the 1D X, if the 7DII has an ISO 80 setting?

Squirrels are fine...but please, no nuts!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 3, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Squirrels are fine...but please, no nuts!


 ;D +1


----------

