# EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 3, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/08/eos-7d-mark-ii-information-cr2/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/08/eos-7d-mark-ii-information-cr2/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Canon EOS 7D Mark II

</strong>We’re told there is zero chance of a 7D Mark II in 2013. The camera is currently slated for release in the second half of 2014. We’re told the final specifications of the camera are far from complete, but it will have the same 20.2mp sensor as the EOS 70D. As well as the Dual Pixel AF and built-in GPS. At present, it will not have wifi, though this could change for the final product.</p>
<p>This all seems very plausible. I would think Canon wants to see what kind of success they have with the revamped xxD line. The 70D looks like an APS-C winner spec wise, we’ll have to wait and see how people feel about it in the real world.</p>
<p>The same person also said a new lower end camera would be released in the first half of 2014. Nothing was mentioned about the fabled big megapixel camera that Canon is working on.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Zv (Aug 3, 2013)

Rather dissapointing news really. I was hoping the 7D2 would have some new tricks rather than just a 70D in wolfs clothing. Oh well!


----------



## rpt (Aug 3, 2013)

Zv said:


> Rather dissapointing news really. I was hoping the 7D2 would have some new tricks rather than just a 70D in wolfs clothing. Oh well!


Don't worry, it is just a rumor


----------



## Kufat (Aug 3, 2013)

If they put in wifi, there's no reason not to use the same radio as an RF Speedlite controller. (Both use the 2.4 GHz band.) Might require either a custom IC or an unusually flexible wifi chipset, but should be doable at reasonably low cost.


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 3, 2013)

So who is this camera really intended to appeal to? Not trolling, but I am confused. Is the sensor that much better than the current 7D to entice current 7D owners to upgrade? Will the new dual pixels change af much for sports/wildlife photog work? Is the image quality from the sensor a great step up from the current 7D?

I don't have a 7D, but was considering the 7D2 for extra reach to supplement my 5D3 for wildlife photography as a more affordable alternative to some 10K lenses or perhaps extenders. 

So how does this stack up against the 70D?

Just wondering.

sek


----------



## Vivid Color (Aug 3, 2013)

Surely something significant will be included in the 7DII to differentiate it from the 70D. But what?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 3, 2013)

So after a year more development time it will be a 70D WITHOUT wifi.... and probably for at least $500 more.... I don't think so...

Canon said things like groundbreaking and revolutionary.... while less features for more money would certainly be different, sales would be slow....

I don't believe this rumour for a second.


----------



## Snaps (Aug 3, 2013)

Despite its age, the current 7D is still a very capable camera, and one at that which has had quite an impact on the photography community. Maybe Canon wants the next iteration to be that much better?

And when I think about it, I suspect there was a very good reason why Canon released that v2 firmware not too long, and it was more than just updating the camera. It was more about making it relevant for even longer. I'm currently thinking about upgrading from my XSi, and the upcoming 70D looks enticing, but there's always the 7D as another consideration. Then again, I could always wait even longer for the 7D MKII in the hope that it's just that much better. 

But why should I wait when I've been using an entry-level camera for the past 4 years? Any upgrade will be beneficial regardless of the camera these days. I don't know, we'll see.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 3, 2013)

I was hoping for a more light-sensitive sensor in the 7DII. This dual pixel thing seems to be more for video. Well, I guess no other way than full frame, then. I wish they at least announce it soon so that I can plan slowly replacing my EF-S lenses...


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 3, 2013)

The days of "having" to upgrade crop bodies is pretty much over. There's no reason to swap or sell a 7D for any other crop body. However, there is one feature which would change that, and that is in-camera IS.

-------------

http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/


----------



## Twostones (Aug 3, 2013)

Hopefully the body will be the same size as the current 7D or larger to fit us with larger hands. Other wants in the new 7DII would be Magnesium body, Fully weather sealed, 100% view finder, On board Flash controller, built in Introvalometer, a rear facing sensor for wire less remote, 24 megapixels and a flip out screen. All this and keeping the same features of the current 7D would be a nice camera. As far as Wi-Fi, I could care less about that.


----------



## ScottyP (Aug 3, 2013)

It needs something besides weather sealing to justify a big premium over 70d. I will not pay 200% of the 70d just to get PARTIAL protection against a hazard which is only 10% likely to even happen in the 4 - 5 years before I'd be thinking a body is due for replacement anyway. (I am not Bear Grylls and don't pretend to be).

They evidently won't have a better ISO or DR sensor. I doubt there will be a Digic 7 in the cards for this body. What does that leave? They will probably add some AF points. Perhaps they might give it a 1x form factor. I honestly dont want any more FPS than the old 7d has, because of the hassle dealing with hundreds or thousands of images, most of which are essentially fast burst duplicates. I personally have no desire for better video than what 70d will have. 

Not sure that is enough. 

I like the idea of built in RT transmitter, and it would be easy to include. Also, is there any way at all that dual-pixel tech could do expanded DR, like quasi-HDR or something?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2013)

_*IF*_ the 7D2 has the same sensor as the 70D...

1) Shame on Canon. 7D2 is the standard bearer for APS-C. It must have the best sensor they have. A year old sensor is a weak offering there. I am not saying this for megapixel reasons, but for the fact that a flagship body should have top to bottom new tech at its core. 

2) _Everything else about this camera had better be gangbusters_ -- better build, 10-12 FPS (entirely possible with 2014 processing power against only a 20 MP sensor), the 1DX/5D3 AF system, etc.

This was supposed to be a camera costing _more_ than the 6D, the 'pro APS-C rig' for birders and sports guys with huge glass, etc. But for the first major design decision we've heard of, this is a poor way to justify that kind of money.

- A


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 3, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> The days of "having" to upgrade crop bodies is pretty much over. There's no reason to swap or sell a 7D for any other crop body....




Yes there is: much better ISO performance. I use mine for 'action photography' ie motorsports and wildlife and I unfortunately find that I'm often using iso 1600+ to get both the DOF and shutter speeds I want. Interestingly this is the body I would soonest replace. The 5D2 is miles ahead in image quality.


----------



## HoodlessShooter (Aug 3, 2013)

DSLR development appears to be reaching a plateau, and sales seem to be reflecting this. The 70D is basically a consumerized version of the 7D, similar to how the 6D was a consumerized version of the 5D2. I don’t really think there is as much room for a 7D2, as the 70D is probably good enough to basically replace it. The image quality of the 6D/5D3, and the AF advantages of the 5D3 probably have also sliced off a significant share of potential buyers. There is likely a bean counter somewhere that has figured they would be better selling more 70Ds, 6Ds, and 5D3s than having to produce and market another camera in the current economic climate. By next year these cameras will all be mid-cycle when they can re-evaluate the marketplace and put out a 7D2 to goose sales if it makes sense.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > The days of "having" to upgrade crop bodies is pretty much over. There's no reason to swap or sell a 7D for any other crop body....
> ...



+1. 

Every photog in this forum runs up against the limits of their equipment on a daily basis. One extra stop of IS, one more stop of low-light performance, etc. are useful adds to people who shoot weddings, indoor sports, etc.

I'm a 5D3 guy and honestly get frustrated that I need more than ISO 6400 for some shots (obviously, where a flash can't be used). Am I spoiled for being able to capture what we couldn't 20 years ago? Sure. But I still want to capture my human experience, and I often am in places and that are not ideal to shoot. Progress on every front with these rigs lets me net more keeper shots.

Applying this specifically to the 7D, the 7D2 having the 1DX/5D3 AF system _alone_ is worth the upgrade. That focusing system is world class.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> This was supposed to be a camera costing _more_ than the 6D, the 'pro APS-C rig' for birders and sports guys with huge glass, etc. But for the first major design decision we've heard of, this is a poor way to justify that kind of money.



Well, that's what a lot of us are hoping for...but Canon just wants to sell lots of these cameras, and maybe their market research has determined that the opinions of those on this forum aren't aligned with their majority demographic. A camera that's a bit better than the 70D, and costs a bit more but still well under 6D price, might sell a lot better than a 'pro APS-C rig' costing over $2500.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 3, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Yes there is: much better ISO performance.



I disagree. I've seen IQ at lower ISO's actually get worse. The 7d is noisy as hell at ISO 100, especially in the skies. 

The differences between higher ISO's on crop bodies are miniscule at best the last several years and not worth upgrading for.


----------



## SecundumArtemRx (Aug 3, 2013)

HoodlessShooter said:


> DSLR development appears to be reaching a plateau, and sales seem to be reflecting this. The 70D is basically a consumerized version of the 7D, similar to how the 6D was a consumerized version of the 5D2. I don’t really think there is as much room for a 7D2, as the 70D is probably good enough to basically replace it. The image quality of the 6D/5D3, and the AF advantages of the 5D3 probably have also sliced off a significant share of potential buyers. There is likely a bean counter somewhere that has figured they would be better selling more 70Ds, 6Ds, and 5D3s than having to produce and market another camera in the current economic climate. By next year these cameras will all be mid-cycle when they can re-evaluate the marketplace and put out a 7D2 to goose sales if it makes sense.


Agree, but speaking as someone who made the mistake of getting a 60D instead of the 7D and now realizing its limitations (AFMA, better focus points, etc) - I will be boycotting these marginal upgrades and hoping others will too, in favor of true market "re-evaluation." I can see the lure of improved videography with the 70D, but there's a notable absence of high end photography features to make me drop more "camera cash."

Canon fooled me once with the 60D and am waiting for the next true sports camera, rather than settling for another marginal 60D upgrade. Lets see a novel APS-C camera with 20+MP, an AF point system on par with the 1D, good iso, and I'd be first in line to buy! That'd be an awesome 7DmkII.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 3, 2013)

Twostones said:


> Hopefully the body will be the same size as the current 7D or larger to fit us with larger hands. Other wants in the new 7DII would be Magnesium body, Fully weather sealed, 100% view finder, On board Flash controller, built in Introvalometer, a rear facing sensor for wire less remote, 24 megapixels and a flip out screen. All this and keeping the same features of the current 7D would be a nice camera. As far as Wi-Fi, I could care less about that.




None of these are worth upgrading over the current 7D, especially since the IQ appears to be the same with their latest sensor in the 70D.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Aug 3, 2013)

I guess this makes good marketing sense. Canon came out with the SL1, 70D and PROBABLY the new "M" camera before the year is over. Enough to keep mindshare active when they have a huge year for 2014.

Lets see: BIG MP DSLR which will probably blow away the Nikon D800. 7D MK II. Fastest APS-C camera on the planet with great ISO performance and even better AF. The new successor to the 1DX. And there isn't much they can do to better the 1DX. So that will be interesting. And they will probably announce the successor to the 5D MKIII at the end of the year.

The 7D is still a fine camera and have some great pics come out of them. Yes, ISO and AF performance could be better. But it's really good as it stands and Canon is smart for milking it as long as they can. 

But heck. I know full-time professionals who are still using their 1D MKII N cameras and supporting their families very well with them. Same with the 1Ds MKIII. So yeah, Canon knows people will wait for something that's going to be significantly better than what they have.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> Twostones said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully the body will be the same size as the current 7D or larger to fit us with larger hands. Other wants in the new 7DII would be Magnesium body, Fully weather sealed, 100% view finder, On board Flash controller, built in Introvalometer, a rear facing sensor for wire less remote, 24 megapixels and a flip out screen. All this and keeping the same features of the current 7D would be a nice camera. As far as Wi-Fi, I could care less about that.
> ...



Disagree. That's like saying you only buy a new lens if it's sharper than the old lens. There's so much more to life than IQ. Consider:


A great AF system will net you more keepers.
Faster burst will net you more keepers.
Better high ISO performance will help you net previously uncapturable shots, or in situations where the light is only bad (and not terrible), you can actually use higher ISO to get a slightly quicker shutter or larger DOF.
Better build and weathersealing will help the camera last longer.

If you are not pushing the limits of your gear -- if you only shoot stills in good light -- then you are right. Buy a Rebel or XXD and an F/4 zoom or F/5.6 supertele and snap away. Your pictures will be fantastic and you didn't spend a fortune to do it. That's a win.

But if you live in a difficult shooting environs -- low light, sports, wildlife, handheld, etc. -- there are other considerations than IQ. It's the overall value of the camera that drives it's worth, and the above four points will _absolutely_ move units in the marketplace.

- A


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 3, 2013)

My 2cents for 7D II: 
1. 51 - 61pts AF system, 10fps, solid body built, wifi,

2. NO NEW SENSOR. Don't expect huge improvement in high ISO - half stop better than current crop models.


----------



## DzPhotography (Aug 3, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> My 2cents for 7D II:
> 1. 51 - 61pts AF system, 10fps, solid body built, wifi,
> 
> 2. NO NEW SENSOR. Don't expect huge improvement in high ISO - half stop better than current crop models.


second that


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Aug 3, 2013)

SecundumArtemRx said:


> HoodlessShooter said:
> 
> 
> > DSLR development appears to be reaching a plateau, and sales seem to be reflecting this. The 70D is basically a consumerized version of the 7D, similar to how the 6D was a consumerized version of the 5D2. I don’t really think there is as much room for a 7D2, as the 70D is probably good enough to basically replace it. The image quality of the 6D/5D3, and the AF advantages of the 5D3 probably have also sliced off a significant share of potential buyers. There is likely a bean counter somewhere that has figured they would be better selling more 70Ds, 6Ds, and 5D3s than having to produce and market another camera in the current economic climate. By next year these cameras will all be mid-cycle when they can re-evaluate the marketplace and put out a 7D2 to goose sales if it makes sense.
> ...



Unfortunately the 70D isn't appealing to professional videographers, even as a B cam. It still line skips and creates terrible moire, aliasing and nasty artifacts. The cameras also use crippling codecs that are terrible to work with and destroy the IQ. 

It appears that Canon has not fixed any of the much needed issues for videographers and have not given the photographers a worthy upgrade. At this point I would only buy a Canon camera that would work well with Magic Lantern; they seem like their providing more ground breaking features at a faster pace when compared to Canon.


----------



## insanitybeard (Aug 3, 2013)

Realising this is a rumour, so with that in mind....

*IF* it was to have the same sensor as the 70D, which by some accounts will have little improvement at RAW level compared to the current 7D etc, I figure I may as well put my money towards a full frame body upgrade, which of course, may all be part of Canon's grand plan......


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> Realising this is a rumour, so with that in mind....
> 
> *IF* it was to have the same sensor as the 70D, which by some accounts will have little improvement at RAW level compared to the current 7D etc, I figure I may as well put my money towards a full frame body upgrade, which of course, may all be part of Canon's grand plan......



I believe that is exactly Canon's plan. Or course, then your EF-S lenses won't work and will need to be replaced, and your longest lens will no longer be long enough. I wonder if Canon has thought of that, too? :


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> Realising this is a rumour, so with that in mind....
> 
> *IF* it was to have the same sensor as the 70D, which by some accounts will have little improvement at RAW level compared to the current 7D etc, I figure I may as well put my money towards a full frame body upgrade, which of course, may all be part of Canon's grand plan......



I'm not even a crop shooter and I still think the 7D2 could be dynamite if they 'pro' it up on build, framerate, AF, etc. If you own $10k+ of longer glass, I still think a built-for-war, high FPS, stellar focusing APS-C rig could sell for $2500 and be successful.

- A


----------



## lopicma (Aug 3, 2013)

I like the GPS spec. There are too many Wi-Fi alternatives available for me to "need" it built into the camera. GPS, on the other hand, is an expensive camera add-on. Having it built into the camera seems to be more wallet friendly.

I am guessing it [GPS] can't be shoe horned into an SD card, otherwise Eye-Fi and others would have it available.

Speaking of which, I am trying out the app GPS4CAM until my dream of a GPS in every camera comes true.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 3, 2013)

If it still has 10fps and 61 Pt AF, It will still sell like hotcakes...


----------



## insanitybeard (Aug 3, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> I'm not even a crop shooter and I still think the 7D2 could be dynamite if they 'pro' it up on build, framerate, AF, etc. If you own $10k+ of longer glass, I still think a built-for-war, high FPS, stellar focusing APS-C rig could sell for $2500 and be successful.
> 
> - A



Not that I disagree with what you're saying, but as a current 7D owner (I may or not be a typical one) my main reason to upgrade would be better IQ across the ISO range, I'm already happy with the current 7D's build, framerate and AF spread (accuracy is another matter possibly, as discussed elsewhere). What you are describing is more a backup or second body to a shooter already heavily invested in glass and full frame bodies than an upgrade for somebody who has the 7D as their primary body.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 3, 2013)

lopicma said:


> I am guessing it [GPS] can't be shoe horned into an SD card, otherwise Eye-Fi and others would have it available.



I can see two possible problems:

1. Antennas inside the metal chassis of the SD slot might or might not be able to detect the relatively weak GPS signal successfully.

2. The lowest-power GPS chips I've seen draw 131 mW during acquisition, and as far as I can tell, the SD card spec (at least the pre-UHS spec) only allows 540 mW max, so you'd be drawing almost a fourth of the maximum allowed power just for the GPS chip, not counting the power drawn by whatever interface circuitry you use to communicate with the camera or the power consumption of the flash parts (if somebody took a picture during acquisition).

It might not be impossible, but I'd expect it to be a *lot* of work.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> If you own $10k+ of longer glass, I still think a built-for-war, high FPS, stellar focusing APS-C rig could sell for $2500 and be successful.



What fraction of Canon's intended 7DII market segment do you think owns $10K+ of longer glass?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > If you own $10k+ of longer glass, I still think a built-for-war, high FPS, stellar focusing APS-C rig could sell for $2500 and be successful.
> ...



not me...

For me, the big reasons for upgrading to a 7D2 are better autofocus system and wifi that will allow remote control over the camera. Remote control is very useful for shooting birds at feeders or small animals that scurry away when you get close enough for a picture.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 3, 2013)

I think the small differences from camera body to camera body are greatly exaggerated. More often than not it's people who collect cameras looking for an excuse to have something shiny and new (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, it's great...but don't disguise it as something else.)

At some point, those who must have improved low light ability are going to just buy full frame. There are only so many tricks for APS-C, so many machinations. I shoot low light in extreme conditions (national parks and wilderness in all seasons) and the 7D works pretty well for that. I'm not going to buy another APS-C unless there is a *significant* upgrade in dynamic range and RAW noise. Improved AF and a flip out screen are nice, but the heart of a camera is the sensor. 

Honestly I don't see the point in a $1900 7D II that has the image quality of the $1300 70D.


----------



## whothafunk (Aug 3, 2013)

people take this rumor as an absolute truth. its a RUMOR. second half of 2014? more than 12 months (again a rumor) until released? many things can change.


----------



## crasher8 (Aug 3, 2013)

whothafunk said:


> people take this rumor as an absolute truth. its a RUMOR. second half of 2014? more than 12 months (again a rumor) until released? many things can change.



I know what will change…my sanity. Waiting for the body and reading posts on peoples beliefs on what this cameras shortcomings (and a few who will actually speak positively) are and how they are disappointed. This one will top the long waits and endless threads for the 200-400, 5D3 and even the Unicorn lenses (i.e. 14-24)


----------



## AlanF (Aug 3, 2013)

Well, it makes me pleased that I decided in January to buy a 5D III instead of waiting for the 7D II.


----------



## ITshooter (Aug 3, 2013)

Here's a possible differentiation that no one's brought up: video-centric features. 

The 70D has the new dual-pixel autofocus during video, and its inherited the All-I recording option found in the current-gen XD full frame cameras. But early sample footage suggests image quality isn't much better than that found in earlier ASP-C Canon models. Lots of artifacts, sub-HD resolution, etc.

That means the 7D II could feature some kind of significant step-up in video features. Maybe it will have a cleaner image, like the 5D Mark III (though I doubt it, if the 7D Mark II shares the 70D's sensor). Or maybe it will be a little sharper, like the 1DX, or even like the 35mm crop mode in the 1D-C. Or maybe Canon will do something really surprising, like implement decent video encoding. The much-ballyhooed All-I recording feature is better than the original implementation, but something that uses 4:2:2 color space would be nice, or that legitimately had a broadcast-ready bit rate.

Other rumors mentioned a 60fps burst mode, which has interesting photographic applications. That could produce 2.5 seconds of RAW 4K slow-mo footage, which opens up a world of applications currently unavailable to any Canon shooter--including the 1D-C crowd.

I think Canon could go this route without harming its other products.

The full frame models will have enough differentiation purely because of their larger sensors. The full frame aesthetic isn't possible on an ASP-C camera, at least not unless Speed Booster-style adaptors become more reliable and widely-adopted. For film people, it could make sense to have both an ASP-C body and a full-frame body, if Canon releases these hypothetical video enhancements. For stills people, meanwhile, if the 7D II shares the 70D's image sensor, full frame cameras are likewise still protected. So these video features present no loss to the XD full frame bodies, excluding losses that Canon is already evidently ready to accept (e.g. the company seems ready to accept some 5D Mark III losses among sports shooters by making the 7D Mark II a faster camera with a comparable autofocus system)

What about the C-series cameras? Well, the 7D II won't have the ergonomics of a C300, and that matters. If it didn't, Canon wouldn't be selling so many of the things. The RED Scarlet isn't much more money, and it produces better image quality in many ways. Still, the C300 still does very well because it allows faster workflows while offering, for most applications, video quality that's close enough to what one gets from RED. Plus there are other factors, such as built-in ND filters, audio ports, etc. 

Also, Canon is going to have to move the lower-level C-series cameras to 4K relatively soon. Maybe not in the next year, but if the 7D Mark II is a 2014 camera, I wouldn't be surprised if a C300 mark II and a C100 mark II appeared shortly thereafter. If Black Magic ever gets its manufacturing act together, and if Sony keeps pushing hard on price, Canon's hand might be forced even sooner. So I don't think superior video specs on a 7D Mark II will cause any trouble with C-series bodies.

I constantly hear people talk about backlash when a company releases a superior spec on a downstream product-- i.e. is it possible some 5D Mark III users will be pissed if the 7D Mark II comes along with the video features they actually wanted? Sure, some people will grumble-- but they'd grumble more if Canon keeps relying on the same crappy video codecs.

The video improvements I've described could also help Canon with the Magic Lantern angle. I think Canon likes Magic Lantern in the sense that the hack encourages budget filmmakers to buy Canon DSLRs instead of, say, Nikon DSLRs, or something like the Sony FS100. But Canon also gets a lot of flack over Magic Lantern because the hacks illustrate how much Canon intentionally handicaps hardware. From Canon's perspective, this criticism isn't that big a deal, as it doesn't impact the markets where Canon makes its money-- e.g. consumers buying Rebels. But the markets it DOES annoy are still lucrative, both because there's a growing number of people in them, and because these people tend to buy more accessories than the average consumer. You'll find a million consumers who stick with the kit lens-- but try finding a wannabe filmmaker who hasn't begun investing in some fast primes, or who isn't salivating over something expensive, like the creamy bokeh of the 50L?

This is kind of a rambling post, but the point is this: I see lots of reasons for Canon to differentiate the 7D Mark II's video features in a major way, and not a lot of risk if the company chooses to do so.


----------



## Alejandro Calori (Aug 3, 2013)

GPS in the 7D MK II will mean a top plastic cover, just like the 6D. I don't like it.

One of the forts of the 7D was his extreme weather sealing and its durability.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 3, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not even a crop shooter and I still think the 7D2 could be dynamite if they 'pro' it up on build, framerate, AF, etc. If you own $10k+ of longer glass, I still think a built-for-war, high FPS, stellar focusing APS-C rig could sell for $2500 and be successful.
> ...



+1

I am in the same boat. All I really want from my next camera is higher ISO sensitivity, otherwise I am very content with the 7D. Now, I had been hoping my next camera could be the 7DII and I am willing to wait a year if I know it will have what I want. However, this rumor makes me feel I should look to upgrade to a full frame- now, that involves replacing all my EF-S lenses with equivalent quality EF zooms, and that is a major headache financially since I don't make money out of this. Also, it is hard to upgrade from the 7DII to 6D and lose all the nice features I have gotten used to. So, that is a $ 2000 shocker right there, and that if I manage to get a good price on my used 7D and if I catch a good deal... Oh bummer!


----------



## mdmphoto (Aug 4, 2013)

I've owned a 7D since shortly after its introduction. I bought a 6D this past April. On my recent trip I shot the 6D as my carry-around (still getting to know it) and anytime the light was low. I used either/or in daylight. Action (surfers, birds, etc.) in daylight was almost exclusively 7D. The dynamic range of the 6D beats the 7D hands-down. 7D AF, AF points, frame rate is way above 6D capabilities. My 7D captures almost double the frames my 6D does in the same amount of time. I don't regret buying the 6D just for the increased ability to shoot well at night, and for better detail in my landscapes. The 7D has survived so long because as a new breed it was far superior to the xxD line, and its features pushed the xD line; though it lacked xD DR & ISO capabilities most of these issues could be addressed in ppc. Marry the best features of the two bodies together for a sure winner in the 7D MkII.


----------



## Zv (Aug 4, 2013)

Why would Canon put the sensor from a xxD line into a xD model? Shouldn't it be the other way round? A new sensor in the flagship APS-C body that will eventually trickle it's way downwards? 

I'm liking my 7D more and more these days, and if this rumor were to be true I'd be keeping it. Might as well wait for the 5D4 or 6D2 at this rate!


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 4, 2013)

Maybe they want to release a full frame with on sensor PDAF at the same time.


----------



## brad-man (Aug 4, 2013)

Zv said:


> Why would Canon put the sensor from a xxD line into a xD model? Shouldn't it be the other way round? A new sensor in the flagship APS-C body that will eventually trickle it's way downwards?
> 
> I'm liking my 7D more and more these days, and if this rumor were to be true I'd be keeping it. Might as well wait for the 5D4 or 6D2 at this rate!



+1 I think it's pretty much a given that the new 7D will have outstanding AF, but I find it hard to believe that the sensor improvement will be so marginal. If true, then I guess Canon really is having trouble in the sensor development area. Looks like I'll be keeping my 7D around for quite some time as well.


----------



## ITshooter (Aug 4, 2013)

mdmphoto said:


> I've owned a 7D since shortly after its introduction. I bought a 6D this past April. On my recent trip I shot the 6D as my carry-around (still getting to know it) and anytime the light was low. I used either/or in daylight. Action (surfers, birds, etc.) in daylight was almost exclusively 7D. The dynamic range of the 6D beats the 7D hands-down. 7D AF, AF points, frame rate is way above 6D capabilities. My 7D captures almost double the frames my 6D does in the same amount of time. I don't regret buying the 6D just for the increased ability to shoot well at night, and for better detail in my landscapes. The 7D has survived so long because as a new breed it was far superior to the xxD line, and its features pushed the xD line; though it lacked xD DR & ISO capabilities most of these issues could be addressed in ppc. Marry the best features of the two bodies together for a sure winner in the 7D MkII.



I'm not sure I'd personally have made the same decision, with respect to camera usage, but I can see why you did. When I upgraded my a Rebel to a 60D, the 60D felt _substantially_ more robust and sophisticated. And I got great shots with it that I was able to use in professional capacities. But I've used my 5D Mark III almost exclusively for more than a year, and when I recently picked up the 60D for the first time in months, I was astonished: The camera felt like a toy. I'd always rolled my eyes when people - elitists, I once presumed - said things like that in the past, but I found myself forced to agree. I think the 6D's image quality advantage would make use it over a 7D in a lot of situations, but I can imagine someone sticking with the 7D in all but low light and tripod work, just for the ergonomics and responsiveness. 

Maybe that's Canon's plan. The sensors might not be the revelation that was previously rumored, but if the 7D Mark II's build quality and other features are top-notch, maybe the sensor doesn't have to be. 

I'd loved to be proved wrong on that front, though. It's interesting that this rumor, which conflicts with many in the past, has been given a CR2. Not sure if that indicates corroboration from several sources, or a single rumor from a known source. But of all the 7D Mark II gossip to come along lately, this one is both the least exciting, and, based on Canon's recent APS-C strategy, the most likely.


----------



## Rat (Aug 4, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> There's no reason to swap or sell a 7D for any other crop body. However, there is one feature which would change that, and that is in-camera IS.


A stabilized sensor means no stabilized viewfinder image. And especially for the longer lenses, I think that's a big turnoff.


----------



## AprilForever (Aug 4, 2013)

Why nay a better fiercer sensor? when's that smaller process thingie going to get soem action?


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 4, 2013)

Rat said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > There's no reason to swap or sell a 7D for any other crop body. However, there is one feature which would change that, and that is in-camera IS.
> ...



Not necessarily. There's no reason you couldn't use sensor stabilization only when the lens doesn't have stabilization or when you're shooting video (where the lower audible noise of sensor stabilization is a potential win).

For that matter, there's no reason you couldn't use the built-in lens stabilization for correction while you're shooting and then combine it with sensor stabilization for more precise correction beyond the precision of the lens's stabilizer, or use the lens stabilization only as you start to reach the limits of the sensor stabilization to minimize the lens stabilization's effect on bokeh.

With such a scheme, wide-angle lenses could usually get away with not having in-lens IS, which would reduce the cost considerably, whereas telephoto lenses (which benefit more from in-lens IS) could continue to have in-lens IS.


----------



## michael6liu (Aug 4, 2013)

Like many who already posted here, if this rumor is true, I will not be getting the MKII. Chances are, I will get rid of my rest APS-C altogether.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 4, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> Realising this is a rumour, so with that in mind....
> 
> *IF* it was to have the same sensor as the 70D, which by some accounts will have little improvement at RAW level compared to the current 7D etc, I figure I may as well put my money towards a full frame body upgrade, which of course, may all be part of Canon's grand plan......



+1000


----------



## garyknrd (Aug 4, 2013)

Pretty much what I expected really. Not wanting, but expecting. Keep saving my pennies until they have something I like.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 4, 2013)

whothafunk said:


> people take this rumor as an absolute truth. its a RUMOR. second half of 2014? more than 12 months (again a rumor) until released? many things can change.



+1 

It's quite believable, though, that the 7DII will come in the second half of 2014.
I was actually thinking that the 7DII will get announced in March next year.
Now July-August seems more likely.

On the other hand, I don't believe that the 7DII will have the 70D sensor.
Canon won't be able to charge too much premium for the 7DII if it has the same sensor as the 70D - regardless of AF.

So, we'll see.


----------



## xps (Aug 4, 2013)

I heared from some nature photographers that the NikonD400 will be released in the same time (Rumors!). Maybe Canon will try to meet its specs. 24 MP, good iso performance, 9fps,...
They have to hurry on. I would be disappointed, if DR and an high Iso quality will not be much better then my current 7D or 60D


My local dealer told me that the announced 70D will be shipped in the end of september :-( A long time from announcement. 
Maybe the 7D2 will be announced in the winter and sold in summer.... To keep some of us from converting to Nikon....


By the way:
I will see. I own 15 Canon mount lenses. But if Canon will always be third in my favour disciplines, a switch will be possible. Sigma and maybe another lens-maker will offer an mount converion. Maybe my third body will be an Nikon for Landscape with some Sigma lenses...


----------



## whothafunk (Aug 4, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> The same person also said a new lower end camera would be released in the first half of 2014.


750D? who cares!


----------



## xps (Aug 4, 2013)

garyknrd said:


> Pretty much what I expected really. Not wanting, but expecting. Keep saving my pennies until they have something I like.



Yesss.....the D400....... ;D

True. But it is disappointing that every other manufacturer build more "fitting" cameras then Canon does in these days. (My opinion on this theme)


----------



## xps (Aug 4, 2013)

whothafunk said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > The same person also said a new lower end camera would be released in the first half of 2014.
> ...



As Neuroanatomist wrote:Canons cash cows are theses cheaper bodies or the pocket cameras. In future small cameras with big sensors


----------



## whothafunk (Aug 4, 2013)

i know that. still, who cares about another rebel. i am really disappointed at the 7D2's "late" arrival. people want it!


----------



## dflt (Aug 4, 2013)

Maybe Canon doesn't wanna cannibalize its full frame market with a superior quality sensor. Why would you buy an FF sensor dslr if you have a superb apsc sensor dslr with awesome iq? So if you are an IQ freak, go for the FF and if you are an enthusiast and/or really doesnt care about iq that much, then go for the apsc.

or

99,5 percent of the consumers doesnt care about the sensor features, since they cant even tell the difference between the final output. They want a solid AF and video options. Thats all.


----------



## Canon 69D (Aug 4, 2013)

Just wondering, in the article. It referred to a new "lower end" model.

Would this be another APS-C Camera? It is going to be above the 70D?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 4, 2013)

crazyrunner33 said:


> SecundumArtemRx said:
> 
> 
> > HoodlessShooter said:
> ...



Hmm could the delay be to retool the video, now that ML RAW is out they can't get away with poor processing being done to video. ?
Dual digic 6 could also read the entire sensor at once perhaps and avoid line skipping even though 20MP isn't a 2x2 or 3x3 block multiple.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 4, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> So after a year more development time it will be a 70D WITHOUT wifi.... and probably for at least $500 more.... I don't think so...
> 
> Canon said things like groundbreaking and revolutionary.... while less features for more money would certainly be different....



it would ;D :'( ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 4, 2013)

Vivid Color said:


> Surely something significant will be included in the 7DII to differentiate it from the 70D. But what?



5D3+ level AF for sure. 10fps for sure, probably needs 12fps if the sensor's IQ is old news.

But the talk about same sensor and no mention of the new sensor really improve IQ at all and it still being used for late 2014.... yikes will Canon never ever catch up to Exmor and Aptina and everything else these days for low ISO?
Hopefully they are simply not bothering to bring it up for whatever reason. Otherwise that is even more worrisome for the 5D4/3D/1DSx or whatever.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > If you own $10k+ of longer glass, I still think a built-for-war, high FPS, stellar focusing APS-C rig could sell for $2500 and be successful.
> ...



A lot of the serious birding crowd I'm sure.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 4, 2013)

ITshooter said:


> Here's a possible differentiation that no one's brought up: video-centric features.
> 
> The 70D has the new dual-pixel autofocus during video, and its inherited the All-I recording option found in the current-gen XD full frame cameras. But early sample footage suggests image quality isn't much better than that found in earlier ASP-C Canon models. Lots of artifacts, sub-HD resolution, etc.
> 
> That means the 7D II could feature some kind of significant step-up in video features. Maybe it will have a cleaner image, like the 5D Mark III (though I doubt it, if the 7D Mark II shares the 70D's sensor). Or maybe it will be a little sharper, like the 1DX, or even like the 35mm crop mode in the 1D-C. Or maybe Canon will do something really surprising, like implement decent video encoding. The much-ballyhooed All-I recording feature is better than the original implementation, but something that uses 4:2:2 color space would be nice, or that legitimately had a broadcast-ready bit rate.



Much of the problem isn't even the codec they used. You can get 4:2:2 uncompressed over HDMI on the 5D3 now and.... it barely looks better than what the in cam shot footage delivers. But then look at ML RAW and it's holy cow! Sooo much more detail and much better DR and more natural looking noise/'grain' patterns. They are doing something funky in the single chain. Maybe Digic is a crap processor and they are retooling it to do a much better job of debayer, scaling, range compression, etc. Maybe they realize they need to ship all the 7,5,1 series from now on with RAW option too since that also also brings many more bits of depth which does help in ways too. Maybe they need to add 4K option too. And chips fast enough to read the whole sensor at once so non-2x2,3x3 block scaled sensors can be free of moire and aliasing?






> Also, Canon is going to have to move the lower-level C-series cameras to 4K relatively soon. Maybe not in the next year, but if the 7D Mark II is a 2014 camera, I wouldn't be surprised if a C300 mark II and a C100 mark II appeared shortly thereafter. If Black Magic ever gets its manufacturing act together, and if Sony keeps pushing hard on price, Canon's hand might be forced even sooner. So I don't think superior video specs on a 7D Mark II will cause any trouble with C-series bodies.



If Canon is smart they will forget worrying about hurting low end C series and losing to BM and perhaps Sony or who knows who else. If the 5D3 had delivered something close to ML RAW quality and usability features from day 1 it may have flown off the shelves and excited the video forums more.

Dual-phase pixel AF is one thing to help a lot but the IQ for video needs to be way fixed up too from the 7D.
And now that people have seen ML RAW.... bar is high.


----------



## CTJohn (Aug 4, 2013)

mdmphoto said:


> I've owned a 7D since shortly after its introduction. I bought a 6D this past April. On my recent trip I shot the 6D as my carry-around (still getting to know it) and anytime the light was low. I used either/or in daylight. Action (surfers, birds, etc.) in daylight was almost exclusively 7D. The dynamic range of the 6D beats the 7D hands-down. 7D AF, AF points, frame rate is way above 6D capabilities. My 7D captures almost double the frames my 6D does in the same amount of time. I don't regret buying the 6D just for the increased ability to shoot well at night, and for better detail in my landscapes. The 7D has survived so long because as a new breed it was far superior to the xxD line, and its features pushed the xD line; though it lacked xD DR & ISO capabilities most of these issues could be addressed in ppc. Marry the best features of the two bodies together for a sure winner in the 7D MkII.


I have the same cameras and agree completely.


----------



## jebrady03 (Aug 4, 2013)

As a 60D user now, I was disappointed with the 70D revelation of no improvement in RAW. I was hoping that the 7D would use a different sensor in which the main appeal was IQ improvement. Basically, one camera's claim to fame was an improvement in usability via the screen (70D) and the other's claim to fame was an improvement in output. To me, that would give potential buyers a clear path to upgrade.

It seems the 6D may be in my future instead...


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 4, 2013)

jebrady03 said:


> As a 60D user now, I was disappointed with the 70D revelation of no improvement in RAW.



Be positive - this saves you the decision if upgrading to the direct next gen and spending a lot of $$$ for another crop body is necessary  ... just like me, for low light capability ff is still the way to go for the years to come.



mdmphoto said:


> Marry the best features of the two bodies together for a sure winner in the 7D MkII.



No, in this marriage will result in a 5d3 or aps-h  ... and Canon is quite ok with people buying two $1500+ cameras instead of one 

Concerning the specs: no wifi, but gps, i.e. the exact opposite of the 70d? That doesn't make sense and also doesn't seem plausible/likely to me, esp. you can easily use an external gps logger but wifi is a different matter.

Also the "specs nowhere from complete" doesn't square with the fact that there already seem to be multiple 7d2 test cameras out there, so Canon's problem will be about choosing one of them and not re-spec'ing them all over.

Also the dual pixel af as an innovation in the 7d2 is a letdown, people shooting sports/wildlife will most likely continue to use the vf and phase af. But of course with lv af and the mirror already up Canon could get a lot of more fps from the 7d2 at practically zero cost...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2013)

mdmphoto said:


> I've owned a 7D since shortly after its introduction. I bought a 6D this past April. On my recent trip I shot the 6D as my carry-around (still getting to know it) and anytime the light was low. I used either/or in daylight. Action (surfers, birds, etc.) in daylight was almost exclusively 7D. The dynamic range of the 6D beats the 7D hands-down. 7D AF, AF points, frame rate is way above 6D capabilities. My 7D captures almost double the frames my 6D does in the same amount of time. I don't regret buying the 6D just for the increased ability to shoot well at night, and for better detail in my landscapes. The 7D has survived so long because as a new breed it was far superior to the xxD line, and its features pushed the xD line; though it lacked xD DR & ISO capabilities most of these issues could be addressed in ppc. Marry the best features of the two bodies together for a sure winner in the 7D MkII.



They already did - it's called the 5DIII and Canon would like you to buy one.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 4, 2013)

CTJohn said:


> mdmphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I've owned a 7D since shortly after its introduction. I bought a 6D this past April. On my recent trip I shot the 6D as my carry-around (still getting to know it) and anytime the light was low. I used either/or in daylight. Action (surfers, birds, etc.) in daylight was almost exclusively 7D. The dynamic range of the 6D beats the 7D hands-down. 7D AF, AF points, frame rate is way above 6D capabilities. My 7D captures almost double the frames my 6D does in the same amount of time. I don't regret buying the 6D just for the increased ability to shoot well at night, and for better detail in my landscapes. The 7D has survived so long because as a new breed it was far superior to the xxD line, and its features pushed the xD line; though it lacked xD DR & ISO capabilities most of these issues could be addressed in ppc. Marry the best features of the two bodies together for a sure winner in the 7D MkII.
> ...



I also have both cameras and agree ... although the result of marrying the best features of the two starts to look a bit like another camera they sell ... (OK, the 5D3 has a few extra tricks up its sleeve, in particular AF, but still.)

I do like the 6D for its IQ, the fact it's smaller and lighter, and because on it the 40mm pancake gives a 40mm FOV (relevant to me because I do like the option of such a small set up and there's no EF/EFS pancake in the 22 to 28 mm range). However I'm finding it VERY hard to part with the 7D.


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 4, 2013)

All this techno babble should be secondary to image quality. 

I want a next gen flagship camera to give me cleaner and sharper pics with an improvement in DR and noise performance. 

Should I spend $1500-$2000 on arguably better IQ? No. It should just be better. 

I belong to a community of roughly 150 photographers and less than 3% of those are keen on the video capabilities of their cameras. 100% are very interested in image quality.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2013)

Sabaki said:


> I belong to a community of roughly 150 photographers and less than 3% of those are keen on the video capabilities of their cameras. 100% are very interested in image quality.



How many already use FF cameras? How many more would, budget permitting? If you're 'very interested' in IQ, you should first get the best lenses you can, then be hoping to get a FF body, not hoping for dramatic improvements in APS-C sensor IQ.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 4, 2013)

jd7 said:


> I also have both cameras and agree ... although the result of marrying the best features of the two starts to look a bit like another camera they sell ... (OK, the 5D3 has a few extra tricks up its sleeve, in particular AF, but still.)
> 
> I do like the 6D for its IQ, the fact it's smaller and lighter, and because on it the 40mm pancake gives a 40mm FOV (relevant to me because I do like the option of such a small set up and there's no EF/EFS pancake in the 22 to 28 mm range). However I'm finding it VERY hard to part with the 7D.



Once you owned 5D III, your 7D will most likely sitting in the bag & collecting dust - or end up on CL.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 4, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Once you owned 5D III, your 7D will more likely sitting in the bag & collecting dust.



Once you owned a 1dx, the 5d3 will look like a children's toy to you. But this is comparing apples and oranges, the 5d ff range is a completely other gear range - you get nearly two 6d or three 7d1 for one 5d3. So for those who'd like to keep their (one!) camera body price well below $2k, it will remain a struggle with Canon to decide either for good af/fps or low light capability.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 4, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Once you owned 5D III, your 7D will more likely sitting in the bag & collecting dust.
> ...



Show me what your 1D X can do that make my 5D III looks like a children's toy.


----------



## distant.star (Aug 4, 2013)

'
This is beginning to make me wonder if there will ever be a 7D2.

Canon seems to be standing pat in the face of both a market and a technology in flux. When they get a reading on which way the wind may be blowing for at least a couple of years, they'll make a move. And the move may be to abandon high-end APS-C, leaving the 70D as far as you go before dropping into FF territory.

Their investment in APS-C lenses must really be making this a tough decision. Add that to the mire of the mirrorless market, and they must be having some spirited meetings! And I'm thinking they may go on having meetings for a long time before we see anything resembling a 7D2.


----------



## Waterloo (Aug 4, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



I have all three. I love my 1D X and 5D Mark III but, they are different and the 1D X is all about speed and its huge buffer. And yes my 7D is sitting in the bottom of my camera bag collecting dust. I have a friend who is interested in buying it. In all consciousness I don't know if I can sell it to her. I really want to remain friends and I'm trying to convince her to put her money towards the 5D Mark III.


----------



## sanj (Aug 4, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Dylan: It is not about what 1dx can or can not do compared to 5d3, I do agree that 1dx makes 5d3 'feel' a bit like a 'toy'.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Show me what your 1D X can do that make my 5D III looks like a children's toy.



Shoot pictures during a hurricane. Pound in nails if you can't find your hammer. Etc.


----------



## docsmith (Aug 4, 2013)

distant.star said:


> '
> This is beginning to make me wonder if there will ever be a 7D2.



What is odd to me is that it isn't just Canon. Nikon has yet to introduce the long rumored D400.


----------



## M.ST (Aug 4, 2013)

If I loook at the products Canon introduced during the last few years almost all of them are far away from that what customers want to buy.

Canon is now loosing a lot of customers. No new lenses long awaited lenses, no 7D Mark II, now 1Ds Mark III replacement, no bigger megapixel camera etc.

I make the decision to stop all orders for Canon products. It´s a shame what Canon is doing. If the Canon guys wake up and bring a real 1Ds Mark III replacement and the wanted lenses on the market I decide to buy them.

Actually I use up to 95 percent products from Hasselblad and Leica.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2013)

M.ST said:


> If I loook at the products Canon introduced during the last few years almost all of them are far away from that what customers want to buy.
> 
> Canon is now loosing a lot of customers. No new lenses long awaited lenses, no 7D Mark II, now 1Ds Mark III replacement, no bigger megapixel camera etc.



You must have missed the refresh of the supertele lineup, the new 70-200 and 24-70s, and the 200-400. 

They're losing customers? Got any data to support that? Or is it just more hot air?


----------



## David Hull (Aug 4, 2013)

x-vision said:


> whothafunk said:
> 
> 
> > people take this rumor as an absolute truth. its a RUMOR. second half of 2014? more than 12 months (again a rumor) until released? many things can change.
> ...


They collected quite a premium on the 5DIII over the 5DII when the most significant upgrade was the AF. My guess is that the new 7D will end up with the 5DIII style AF. That would actually be pretty nice on an APS-C body.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> You must have missed the refresh of the supertele lineup, the new 70-200 and 24-70s, and the 200-400.



I certainly don't want to intervene in a good dogfight  but I notice the 70-200L refresh was quite a while ago, but the rest are all products targeted towards a high budget (tele primes, 200-400) and/or special/pro crowd (24-70L2 w/o IS, but great edge sharpness).

The 5d3 of course is a good product if you forget about the first retail price, but from there the 6d is for low-light shooting with sub-par af and what the 24-70L/4 is for nobody has figured out yet. And let's not forget, no let's forget about the IS primes. Imho Canon is indeed postponing some updates (50L, 35L, I'd like a 180L/IS) for reasons unknown while 3rd party manufacturers fill the void.

But probably now Canon is going for the enthusiast market again, the 70D will be a good camera for a good price, and maybe the new lenses won't stay a [CR] and won't be updated with a multiplied price tag...


----------



## x-vision (Aug 4, 2013)

David Hull said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > Canon won't be able to charge too much premium for the 7DII if it has the same sensor as the 70D - regardless of AF.
> ...



With the 5DIII it's different: it's a real pro body, second best in the lineup after the 1DX. 
The alternatives are a hamstrung 6D or a crop camera with inferior image quality.
This makes it easy for Canon to charge a hefty premium for the 5DIII - solely based on features.

Not so for the 7DII, which will have a cheaper but still very well spec'd and capable competitor in the face of the 70D.


----------



## dolina (Aug 4, 2013)

7D2 will be announced before Christmas and may be available by Christmas but most likely be widely available by January.

The same will go with the 1D X successor.


----------



## David Hull (Aug 4, 2013)

M.ST said:


> If I loook at the products Canon introduced during the last few years almost all of them are far away from that what customers want to buy.
> 
> Canon is now loosing a lot of customers. No new lenses long awaited lenses, no 7D Mark II, now 1Ds Mark III replacement, no bigger megapixel camera etc.
> 
> ...


Yet somehow they seem to maintain market share and position -- strange.


----------



## dswtan (Aug 4, 2013)

+1 disappointed. But it is just a rumor, fortunately. Doesn't bode well though. The 7D firmware basically told us everything about the potential update timeframe IMO. 

The 70D is looking good, but not what I am looking for. My needs seem niche -- I was hoping for a regular smaller form factor 1DX and not the outsize beast that is. It would complement my 5D3 for greater speed, ISO perf, and crop factor reach. For birds and fast, distant stuff.

I never get battery grips for my DSLRs for the same size reason, and I can't justify the 1DX due to its size as well as cost. A small form factor 1DX would be perfect. Call it the 7DX. I would pay as much as I did for the 5D3. 

My 7D is languishing because its ISO perf is just not good enough.


----------



## docsmith (Aug 4, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Well, it makes me pleased that I decided in January to buy a 5D III instead of waiting for the 7D II.



+1. Exactly what this rumor has me thinking.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2013)

dswtan said:


> My 7D is languishing because its ISO perf is just not good enough.



Then a 7DII won't be the answer, because the real limitation on ISO performance is the APS-C-sized sensor. Unfortunately, physics trumps hopes and dreams.


----------



## distant.star (Aug 4, 2013)

.
Well that gave me a great, good laugh. However, we have irrefutable evidence part of that is not true. One of the best (and most courageous) photographers I know used his 5D3 with 70-200 f/2.8 II to shoot Hurricane Sandy washing away a pier on the New Jersey coast last year. He keeps posting pictures so I guess the camera is still working.

As for hammering nails, I'm going to let someone else do the definitive testing. I don't know about the 1Dx, but I would have been comfortable hammering nails with my 1V -- and I'm sure it would have done a great job.




neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Show me what your 1D X can do that make my 5D III looks like a children's toy.
> ...


----------



## pedro (Aug 4, 2013)

x-vision said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > x-vision said:
> ...


5D3: today's second best in the pro lineup and the best that could happen to me budget and photographywise. ISO 5000, 3 RAWs stitched together.



MILKYWAY03082013KleinMASTER_DEF by Peter Hauri, on Flickr




MILKYWAY03082013BWXKleinMASTER_DEF by Peter Hauri, on Flickr


----------



## x-vision (Aug 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ... the real limitation on ISO performance is the APS-C-sized sensor. Unfortunately, physics trumps hopes and dreams.



Unfortunately ... you are right.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 4, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Also the dual pixel af as an innovation in the 7d2 is a letdown, people shooting sports/wildlife will most likely continue to use the vf and phase af. But of course with lv af and the mirror already up Canon could get a lot of more fps from the 7d2 at practically zero cost...



But it might allow for f/8 AF with more lens combos and maybe help for macro wildlife and wildlife video.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > I belong to a community of roughly 150 photographers and less than 3% of those are keen on the video capabilities of their cameras. 100% are very interested in image quality.
> ...



Problem is they haven't improved low ISO quality on FF either though. Now there are slight hints they might still be 3 stops behind DR for the next round which could mean for at least ANOTHER four years??? Maybe they can't or don't care to ever bother about it not for another 10-20 years?? Hopefully the 70D does improve DR or the 7D2 and whatever else will use a new sensor type.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 4, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Once you owned 5D III, your 7D will most likely sitting in the bag & collecting dust - or end up on CL.



Other than all the times you shoot distance limited wildlife (when you will badly wish you had your 7D back from CL).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Show me what your 1D X can do that make my 5D III looks like a children's toy.
> ...



Well maybe the 5D3 can't do that but I shoot pictures during a hurricane with a 5D2.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Once you owned 5D III, your 7D will most likely sitting in the bag & collecting dust - or end up on CL.
> ...



Especially when it nails the focus. Unfortunately, that happen less often than with my 1D X. It's not that the 7D's AF isn't good, but there have been times when what would otherwise be a great capture is ruined by being OOF, and that gives the 1D X (and 5DIII) a significant advantage.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 4, 2013)

M.ST said:


> If I loook at the products Canon introduced during the last few years almost all of them are far away from that what customers want to buy.
> 
> Canon is now loosing a lot of customers. No new lenses long awaited lenses, no 7D Mark II, now 1Ds Mark III replacement, no bigger megapixel camera etc.
> 
> ...



Well they had been doing that full scale and still are when you look at the silly new Rebel and the 60D and how they left out even 6D-level sensor tech from the 5D3 sensor and they surely have totally dropped the ball on sensor development for low ISO, but the 7D does get some credit (although the AI servo really didn't turn out to be all it was cracked up to be) and the fact they put 1 series AF in the 5D3 and gave the HW capability to do awesome video (even if they somehow blocked or muddled it up IQ-se and usage-wise until ML got around it all).

The 70-300L has proved to be a pretty neat lens in the long run and the 24-70 II is about as standard and wanted of a lens as could be with the best quality ever.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Aug 4, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



But again, how large is the serious birding crowd? Probably no more than 5% of the 7DII's intended market. 

While I do REALLY like the idea of a "pro" grade APS-C, it all boils down to high-ISO performance for me. If they can't make a comparable ISO leap on the 7D to 7DII with what they did for the 5dMk II to MkIII, then I see no point in complimenting my Mark III with one. Nothing irritates me more than shooting with two bodies, both at the same settings, and having noisy photos/video from one but not the other. 

And, given the limitations of high MP APS-C sensors (as others have mentioned), I'm very skeptical they can make such a jump unless they reduce the MP count. In my opinion, a 12 to 16MP, 10fps, 61 point auto focus 7DII would be awesome. That's the only way I see them both offering a real "upgrade" while at the same time differentiating a new body from the rest of their line-up. Although, I'm sure a good number of people would prefer high MP to better ISO. It all boils down to shooting needs I guess.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dswtan said:
> 
> 
> > My 7D is languishing because its ISO perf is just not good enough.
> ...



While it is true that a similarly-specc'ed FF sensor will always capture more than twice the amount of light as an APS-C sensor (because of the physics that you mention), it is quite likely that electronics innovation will produce a sensor that makes the newer generation APS-C sensor close to or even better than the previous generation FF. A lot of rumors about 7DII suggested exactly that. And it may still happen, considering this "70D sensor spec" is also a rumor. However, basing one's hopes and dreams on rumors is fraught with the possibility of disappointment.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 4, 2013)

Fyi: Here are raw samples of 20mp crop vs. 18mp crop, so you know what you'll get if you continue to wait patiently until 2014 to enjoy the 7d2  ... http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16248.msg299011#msg299011


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > I belong to a community of roughly 150 photographers and less than 3% of those are keen on the video capabilities of their cameras. 100% are very interested in image quality.
> ...



Hey Neuro. Roughly 15-20% of them own FF, perhaps leaning towards the 15%. 

I do have 3 L lenses and I'm saving for a 24-70 now. 

Perhaps it's your last comment that is most correct: have APS-Cs reached their limits and should they be replaced by APS-H bodies?

PS I'm a total dufus when it comes to tech. I can mostly repeat what I read on the net but I don't fully understand the 'science of limitations' as it pertains to sensors.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Aug 4, 2013)

I guess we have to wait even longer for a Canon camera with film like DR then, oh well.


----------



## Nawaf (Aug 4, 2013)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I would prefer both high MP count (24 like the competition), better ISO, and 12 stops of DR (which my Olympus E-M5 does). Before anyone says it can't be done well look at Sony, Nikon, Olympus, and Panasonic.

If they can't make the sensors that can rival those companies well then why won't they have someone make sensors for them... we can go on and on.

Canon has to take the D400 into consideration so maybe that is why they delayed it. Lets play this waiting game but with all honesty I don't have any confidence in saying that the 7D II will deliver in the sensor department.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 4, 2013)

jd7 said:


> I do like the 6D for its IQ, the fact it's smaller and lighter, and because on it the 40mm pancake gives a 40mm FOV (relevant to me because I do like the option of such a small set up and there's no EF/EFS pancake in the 22 to 28 mm range). However I'm finding it VERY hard to part with the 7D.



+ a lot.

How is there no pancake 22mm for APS-C? _EF-M_ has a length that EF-S doesn't. That's nuts.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > If I loook at the products Canon introduced during the last few years almost all of them are far away from that what customers want to buy.
> ...



Agree with Neuro.

For every Gear Acquisition Syndrome guy that must have _exactly_ what he's dreaming of that leaves Canon, other equally impatient/nuts/unreasonable people are leaving their brand to join us. The only thing the 'leavers' do is pony up mad cash to sate their needs, and that keeps all the companies in business. 

And then there's the rest of us. We use the largest and most popular SLR system in the world, and that's only maintained through Canon's marketeers actually putting decent bets on what they think we'd pay for and then delivering and supporting said bets to market.

For instance, I have two of the newer lenses that are reviled by this forum_ in that they just weren't deemed as important as what people really wanted_: the 28mm F/2.8 IS USM and the 24-70mm F/4L IS USM. But as much as they aren't the lenses the fanboys and forum-dwellers wanted, they are both @#%@ing dynamite lenses -- _especially_ for how and what I shoot.

Also, leaving for (say) Nikon for it's stellar 14-24mm lens would open up many other holes in your bag as I'm sure that they lack something Canon uniquely offers. Congrats, you'd have a D800 and a 14-24. Now you need to buy some F/1.2 primes that Nikon doesn't sell...

So the grass may be greener on the other side to some of you, but my 5D3 and associated gear is a joy to use. Mark my words, the 7D owners will say the same after they make plunge for the 7D2.

- A


----------



## Pi (Aug 4, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> While it is true that a similarly-specc'ed FF sensor will always capture more than twice the amount of light as an APS-C sensor (because of the physics that you mention), it is quite likely that electronics innovation will produce a sensor that makes the newer generation APS-C sensor close to or even better than the previous generation FF.



With the 6D having 50% QE, Canon has to break a few physics laws, including that of energy conservation, to produce a Bayer APS-C sensor with QE of 128% (=1.6^2*50).


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 4, 2013)

David Hull said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > whothafunk said:
> ...



RLPhoto and I are on the same page here. If the 7D2 is nothing more than a 70D + the 1DX/5D3 AF system + a high burst rate, even that alone will see it sell and sell well. As much as I am bummed / possibly disbelieving the 70D sensor choice for the 7D2, the other features alone are worth the upgrade.

Keep in mind that there is a subset of sports (and mainly) wildlife people out there that always are operating on the crazy long end of things. A crop body to them is a super high quality alternative to a teleconverter, or the opportunity to get the same shot as 600mm FF without needing to pay for 600mm glass. Those folks will _always_ upgrade in the crop world as long glass never gets cheaper over time.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 4, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > You must have missed the refresh of the supertele lineup, the new 70-200 and 24-70s, and the 200-400.
> ...



I'll speak to the 24-70 F/4 IS statement:


It is the nearly _perfect_ travel lens. Light, shorter length, and macro means take it anywhere with you -- hikes, vacations, international trips with limited luggage space, etc.
Sharper than than the 24-105 and 24-70 Mk I.

If I get one lens and only one lens to put in my bag for something, it's either that lens or a prime in the 24-35mm neighborhood. 

- A


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 5, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> It is the nearly _perfect_ travel lens. Light, shorter length, and macro means take it anywhere with you -- hikes, vacations, international trips with limited luggage space, etc.[/list]



The 24-70/4 is ot, but well, I know what you wrote is what Canon intended, but at least for the current price I'm not so sure if iq wide open outweighs zoom range for travel. Plus I am sure with a macro w/o working distance you'll bring back nice memories of your own shadow  ... heck, even the 100mm macro working distance is really small.

I've got the impression Canon released the 24-70/4 so no one can say they don't have a ff standard zoom w/o IS and so they can sell more 70-xyz lenses w/o "overlapping" zoom range, but customers would have been better served just with an updated 24-105L2/4.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 5, 2013)

Pi said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > While it is true that a similarly-specc'ed FF sensor will always capture more than twice the amount of light as an APS-C sensor (because of the physics that you mention), it is quite likely that electronics innovation will produce a sensor that makes the newer generation APS-C sensor close to or even better than the previous generation FF.
> ...



The one possible way to increase high ISO IQ a good bit would be to radically increase high ISO DR. If you somehow radically reduced the black frame noise at high ISO. ISO3200 has a lot less DR than ISO200 and it becomes small indeed at ISO6400+. But that might require expensive tech at this point and perhaps advanced cooling systems as well. So it improved high ISO a ton is at a tricky state at this point.

At low ISO other makers are doing pretty well although Canon has quite a few stops they could improve there and that has been proven by many to be possible in reasonable fashion.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 5, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > x-vision said:
> ...



yeah 5D3 AF + 20MP APS-C + dual-phase AF + 12fps would sell even with old sensor

OTOH the other high-end bodies, especially 5 series and 6 series become increasing tricky unless they match Exmor and fix up maximumal DR and IQ quality.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 5, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Yeah 24-70 f/4 IS isn't bad. Not a match for the 24-70 II (other than the edges at 70mm where it is actually most likely better). But no other (other than the 24-70 II) zoom can match it's wide end image quality and deliver a truly satisfying edge to edge image at 24mm (maybe tamron 24-70 VC gets close, although it definitely has more distortion there? it also has f/2.8, although it lacks the macro and is a lot bulkier). From what I've seen it's miles better than the 24-105 at the wide end for edge to edge performance on FF and the IS is more effective (it actually really helps a LOT at 24mm on the 24-70 f/4 IS). In most ways the 24-70 II is better but when you have no time/desire/are not allowed to use a tripod be it a museum, finishing a hike as light gets dimmer, etc. it'll definitely produce better images than the 24-70 II. And the macro thing can be neat, it's a bit tricky compared to a real macro, but then again don't most people simply not bother dragging their stand alone macro other than on dedicated macro trips?

If the tamron wasn't out there I think it would already be getting a good rep. I still think it will in time anyway. At $1500 it is a bit much, but I see for as low as $1025 a times from rep dealers. Anyway I think the 24-70 f/4 IS most likely won't be so joked about after a couple more years. It may be a bit like with the 70-300L. It went from being the black sheep of the forums to one of the more often praised lenses these days. Of course that one is more truly unique as nothing remotely close to the size is better for any price.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 5, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> I've got the impression Canon released the 24-70/4 so no one can say they don't have a ff standard zoom w/o IS and so they can sell more 70-xyz lenses w/o "overlapping" zoom range, but customers would have been better served just with an updated 24-105L2/4.



I don't know. Would a 24-105L II with scarcely better IQ (might be hard to improve with a lens with such wide range) and a little better IS at 50% more better have served the customers?


----------



## BozillaNZ (Aug 5, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> The one possible way to increase high ISO IQ a good bit would be to radically increase high ISO DR. If you somehow radically reduced the black frame noise at high ISO. ISO3200 has a lot less DR than ISO200 and it becomes small indeed at ISO6400+. But that might require expensive tech at this point and perhaps advanced cooling systems as well. So it improved high ISO a ton is at a tricky state at this point.
> 
> At low ISO other makers are doing pretty well although Canon has quite a few stops they could improve there and that has been proven by many to be possible in reasonable fashion.



That's simply not possible. For high ISO DR to beat low ISO, the low ISO DR has to be really BAD.

For the ideal sensor, each stop increase in ISO, the DR will reduce by a stop. And that has almost been the case for D800's sensor.

The reason why Canon's sensor can keep the same DR in ISO 100-800 is because it is has very bad DR at ISO 100, not the other way around! :-[


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 5, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> OTOH the other high-end bodies, especially 5 series and 6 series become increasing tricky unless they match Exmor and fix up maximumal DR and IQ quality.



Yeah, Canon had better get on that quick, or else they'll lose market share to Nikon, Sony, and Pentax. 






Except, they're not............ :


----------



## dstppy (Aug 5, 2013)

THAT'S IT!!! I'm moving to Nikon 

My 7D, newly arrived a few weeks ago BURST INTO FLAMES and STOPPED TAKING PICTURES on the note of this rumor . . ..

Oh, wait, it didn't. Neither did a lot of this other stuff 

My bad. Carry on people.


----------



## Pi (Aug 5, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> The one possible way to increase high ISO IQ a good bit would be to radically increase high ISO DR. If you somehow radically reduced the black frame noise at high ISO. ISO3200 has a lot less DR than ISO200 and it becomes small indeed at ISO6400+. But that might require expensive tech at this point and perhaps advanced cooling systems as well. So it improved high ISO a ton is at a tricky state at this point.



Nah... Reducing the read noise is always good but .... away from the shadows, most of the noise you see at high ISO is shot noise. 

BTW, the 6D has _less_ read noise than the D600 at high ISO.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 5, 2013)

BozillaNZ said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > The one possible way to increase high ISO IQ a good bit would be to radically increase high ISO DR. If you somehow radically reduced the black frame noise at high ISO. ISO3200 has a lot less DR than ISO200 and it becomes small indeed at ISO6400+. But that might require expensive tech at this point and perhaps advanced cooling systems as well. So it improved high ISO a ton is at a tricky state at this point.
> ...




Yeah but maybe they can improve DR overall or improve late stage noise so it would do maybe the same at low ISO as Exmor now and then do better at high ISO because they couldn't improve early state read noise but fixed up late stage more. I don't know what it takes to do the two stages or what the balance is now, maybe the only way would be to improve it universally. It might take active cooling and such perhaps.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > OTOH the other high-end bodies, especially 5 series and 6 series become increasing tricky unless they match Exmor and fix up maximumal DR and IQ quality.
> ...



1. Whether they maintain market sure without doing that DOES NOT HELP ME OR ANY OF US IN THE FIELD. Maybe it you own a ton of their stock you care. Otherwise what the heck could does it do us?? I could give less if Canon sells 90% of all units if in the field I hit upon a high DR scene. What does their marketing figure do me in the field?

2. Eventually in time they will lose more share and who is to say they wouldn't have larger share now than they do.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 5, 2013)

Pi said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > The one possible way to increase high ISO IQ a good bit would be to radically increase high ISO DR. If you somehow radically reduced the black frame noise at high ISO. ISO3200 has a lot less DR than ISO200 and it becomes small indeed at ISO6400+. But that might require expensive tech at this point and perhaps advanced cooling systems as well. So it improved high ISO a ton is at a tricky state at this point.
> ...



Yeah but the shadows would be deeper down if you had more DR.

6D does very well at high ISO, only 1DX does just a trace better really.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 5, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Why, you're right...that marketing stuff, it's irrelevant. Doesn't mean a thing to users. Not a thing. 

Except that IT DETERMINES WHAT FEATURES CANON WILL OR WILL NOT ADD, AND HOW THEY ALLOCATE THEIR R&D SPEND. 

Really, we shouldn't care about that at all, obviously. :

As I've stated before...for several years, Sony/Nikon sensors have delivered better DR. For those same years, Nikon has lost market share to Canon. What about that situation would make Canon devote R&D spend to improving DR?!? Look at the 70D - revolutionary CMOS image sensor AF, same DR. Guess what? Even with the DR that the forum DRones DRone on about, the 70D will sell like gangbuster...reinforcing Canon management's viewpoint that DR isn't where they need to improve.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Aug 5, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > M.ST said:
> ...



I just don't get it. The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC would've given you the same thing as those two lenses AND then some (i.e 2.8 ), plus you would've had enough money left over for the something like the 100mm 2.8 macro or the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 or the 17-40 f4 L or the 70-200 f4 NON-IS. Your money could have gotten you so much more, I'm sorry. _That's the real reason they were deemed unimportant._ By 'fanboys' and 'forum-dwellers' I think you mean those who aren't too keen to waste their money.

And please don't say you need the marginal sharpness benefit of the Canon 24-70 f4. The Tamron is sharp enough for your needs, trust me.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 5, 2013)

I concur with the others in that the only upgrade from the 7D is FF, and even then, there's a hit in pixels-on-target (for wildlife considerations).

Canon really outdid themselves with the 7D. While I would prefer better low ISO DR and noise, it's a fantastic wildlife camera....maybe even the best. If I only shot portraits and landscapes, I wouldn't own it. I'd own a 5D II or 6D instead.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 5, 2013)

Pi said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > While it is true that a similarly-specc'ed FF sensor will always capture more than twice the amount of light as an APS-C sensor (because of the physics that you mention), it is quite likely that electronics innovation will produce a sensor that makes the newer generation APS-C sensor close to or even better than the previous generation FF.
> ...



I am loathe to dismiss any future innovation as impossible. Once people thought flying heavier-than-air aircraft would be breaking the laws of physics! 
On a more practical note, from what I understand QE is a averaged-out estimation of the percentage of photons driving electrons- it is heavily shifted towards brighter objects (first stop>>second stop...). It may be possible to increase sensitivity to the less bright objects- I know it's a bit of hand waving, but all I am trying to say is it is futile to second-guess future electronic innovations just for argument's sake.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Short-sighted and even worse, annoying for their users.
And where was the big sales crash before they decided to focus on non-1 series AF?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 5, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> I am loathe to dismiss any future innovation as impossible. Once people thought flying heavier-than-air aircraft would be breaking the laws of physics!
> On a more practical note, from what I understand QE is a averaged-out estimation of the percentage of photons driving electrons- it is heavily shifted towards brighter objects (first stop>>second stop...). It may be possible to increase sensitivity to the less bright objects- I know it's a bit of hand waving, but all I am trying to say is it is futile to second-guess future electronic innovations just for argument's sake.



I agree..... nobody can predict the future, but everyone tries. Let me share some visionary statements from some of the greatest minds of our times..

Bill Gates - No computer will ever need more than 64K of memory

Texas instruments, when unveiling the 16K by1 bit memory chip - "throw away your design tools, this is as dense as memory can be made"

All of us at work, concerning the invention of Darpa-net and it's transition to the internet - Someday this will be in every school and library.....

And my favourite, Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone, who envisioned that someday there would be a telephone in every city in North America.... (he was told it was impossible because of the amount of wire involved)

Our camera predictions just can not compete against such visionary giants....


----------



## Pi (Aug 5, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> I am loathe to dismiss any future innovation as impossible. Once people thought flying heavier-than-air aircraft would be breaking the laws of physics!



As birds do? 



> On a more practical note, from what I understand QE is a averaged-out estimation of the percentage of photons driving electrons- it is heavily shifted towards brighter objects (first stop>>second stop...). It may be possible to increase sensitivity to the less bright objects- I know it's a bit of hand waving, but all I am trying to say is it is futile to second-guess future electronic innovations just for argument's sake.



No, it is not that. They take into account the whole tonal range:

http://www.sensorgen.info/Calculations.html

What you are suggesting (strong non-linear response to the number of photons) has never been observed, AFAIK.


----------



## Pi (Aug 5, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I am loathe to dismiss any future innovation as impossible. Once people thought flying heavier-than-air aircraft would be breaking the laws of physics!
> ...



Let's get serious. None of those predictions had any foundation in science.

Try something like: "you cannot turn iron into gold" (with a chemical reaction, anyway), "you cannot create Perpetuum Mobile", etc.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 5, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Short-sighted and even worse, annoying for their users.



Annoying to you and a few other forum DRones who represent a tiny minority of Canon's user base (actually even that's an exaggeration - many of the CR DRones aren't even Canon users, they're just here to DRum up rancor).

But let me get this straight - focusing on selling more cameras than the competition is short-sighted? Tell me, what are you doing with your Betamax tapes? And are you enjoying the plethora of new movies being released in the HD-DVD format?



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> And where was the big sales crash before they decided to focus on non-1 series AF?



AF designed for video use. Pro video shooters use AF? That would be news to me, and to Canon as well. Fast video AF is a consumer-oriented feature, and quite frankly will likely be a very attractive feature to Rebel/xxxD owners, the likely target demographic of the 70D. 

But thanks for playing! :


----------



## unfocused (Aug 5, 2013)

This may be a CR2 rumor, but I am having a hard time taking it seriously. 

I can believe either half of the rumor, but not both halves. Canon won't introduce the 7DII until 2014 (believable); Canon may re-use the 70D sensor (believable); 

But, Canon will not introduce the 7DII until 2014 and will recycle the 70D sensor (not believable). 

CR2 means a source that has been right in the past. I think this is a case where past performance is no indicator of future results.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Short-sighted and even worse, annoying for their users.
> ...



I pray you never join the board of Canon or Nikon.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 5, 2013)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> I just don't get it. The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC would've given you the same thing as those two lenses AND then some (i.e 2.8 ).



I'm all in favor for the Tamron, but afaik newer Canon lenses like the 24-70/4 have the far superior (precision, speed) autofocus on the most expensive camera bodies 1dx/5d3. But apart from that, you just described why I'll go for the 100L (very slow af) + Tamron 24-70/2.8 (~crappy af) combination since I don't mind carrying two lenses.



unfocused said:


> CR2 means a source that has been right in the past.



Yes, but for being right once they have been wrong 10 times as far as I remember  ... Canon internal information may leak just before an announcement because more people have access to it, but I suspect no one but the Japanese Canon execs and techs know the specs of 2014 camera bodies.


----------



## vlim (Aug 5, 2013)

No announcement before 2014 not a surprise !

With that kind of rumor, that means a lot of 70D (and 7D) bodies will be sold because it will be an interesting and very capable dslr before the 7D II will be officialy announced and available ; and it means too a lot of time to work on this 7D II that will be a far better body for sure !

They just can't announce two dslr bodies in a 6 months span which can interest the same population of photographers (mostly sport and wildlife ones) that's why i'm confident in a far better body with the 7D II

Just a rumor, no panic 8)


----------



## M.ST (Aug 5, 2013)

Prototypes for a 7D Mark II now exist over a year, but if I look at the 70D and 6D price I think that there is no space for an 7D Mark II between the mentioned cameras.

It seen so, that the 70D IS the new 7D Mark II. But without CF cards the camera has no change to go in the bag of pros.

A 750D will be introduced in the first half of 2014.

The new pro camera (in different versions) with the new sensor design is out for testing for a long time and works very well, but there is no reaction from Canon if you ask for the product introduction.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 5, 2013)

M.ST said:


> A 750D will be introduced in the first half of 2014.



The sun will rise in the east. See, I can predict the obvious, too... :


----------



## tapanit (Aug 5, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Once you owned 5D III, your 7D will most likely sitting in the bag & collecting dust - or end up on CL.


Mine doesn't. It has been demoted to "second body" position though, but I use two bodies often enough, and the 7D complements the 5D3 quite well. In particular I like it that their ergonomics are pretty similar - much more so than between 7D and 60D I used before. And sometimes 7D *is* better, in particular it has longer burst length, and in good light the extra reach is sometimes actually useful (well, just about enough to offset the generally better IQ from 5D3), so that a shorter lens (24-70, say) in the 5D3 and a long one (100-400) in the 7D make a good combination.

I would still be interested in 7D mk2 if it had sufficiently better IQ, especially with high(ish) ISOs, that it would produce visibly better pictures than the 5D3 in focal-length-limited situations. Better AF, higher fps and longer bursts (with raw) would also be appreciated. Everything else, like WiFi and GPS, would be icing on the cake - nice but not important.


----------



## schill (Aug 5, 2013)

unfocused said:


> This may be a CR2 rumor, but I am having a hard time taking it seriously.
> 
> I can believe either half of the rumor, but not both halves. Canon won't introduce the 7DII until 2014 (believable); Canon may re-use the 70D sensor (believable);
> 
> ...



I agree. The combination of the two doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## moreorless (Aug 5, 2013)

M.ST said:


> Prototypes for a 7D Mark II now exist over a year, but if I look at the 70D and 6D price I think that there is no space for an 7D Mark II between the mentioned cameras.
> 
> It seen so, that the 70D IS the new 7D Mark II. But without CF cards the camera has no change to go in the bag of pros.



I wouldn't say that the 7D2 needs to be "between" the 70D and the 6D, indeed I think it could potentially be above the 6D if its given 5D3 level build, pro AF and 10 FPS.


----------



## crasher8 (Aug 5, 2013)

moreorless said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > Prototypes for a 7D Mark II now exist over a year, but if I look at the 70D and 6D price I think that there is no space for an 7D Mark II between the mentioned cameras.
> ...



+1


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Show me what your 1D X can do that make my 5D III looks like a children's toy.
> ...



"Shoot pictures during a hurricane": never done that before. However, my 5D III + 16-35 II did got hit badly with *heavy* rain when I was in HongKong & China(see pics below).

"Pound in nails if you can't find your hammer" : I have a better tool for that - I use my 70-200 f2.8 ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 5, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Once you owned 5D III, your 7D will most likely sitting in the bag & collecting dust - or end up on CL.
> ...



As a prev owner of 7D, I'm well aware what 7D can & can't do - that's why I bought 2nd 5D III.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 5, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Yes, but for being right once they have been wrong 10 times as far as I remember  ... Canon internal information may leak just before an announcement because more people have access to it, but I suspect no one but the Japanese Canon execs and techs know the specs of 2014 camera bodies.



Agree. Think about other much larger sites for smartphones that have people around the world hunting for subcomponents, calling up vendors, reading pending FCC listings, trolling Best Buy's inventory system, etc. -- even _those_ folks don't nail it too often.

I'm not knocking CR with this -- I read the site every day. But rumor mongering is a tough game with a low batting average.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 5, 2013)

moreorless said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > Prototypes for a 7D Mark II now exist over a year, but if I look at the 70D and 6D price I think that there is no space for an 7D Mark II between the mentioned cameras.
> ...



Agree. I've been saying that the 7D2 will cost more than the 6D when it is released. As expensive as the FF sensors are, I believe a 'pro' APS-C rig can out-price a budget FF shooter, solely in that there is a highly invested bunch of 'long-reach' photogs who will gladly spend 2x on a camera body to not have to spend 5-10x on the longest glass Canon sells.

- A


----------



## Pi (Aug 5, 2013)

moreorless said:


> I wouldn't say that the 7D2 needs to be "between" the 70D and the 6D, indeed I think it could potentially be above the 6D if its given 5D3 level build, pro AF and 10 FPS.



In terms of price or capabilities? If the latter, let us agree that I will be "next" to the 6D, not "above" it.


----------



## Krob78 (Aug 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> mdmphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I've owned a 7D since shortly after its introduction. I bought a 6D this past April. On my recent trip I shot the 6D as my carry-around (still getting to know it) and anytime the light was low. I used either/or in daylight. Action (surfers, birds, etc.) in daylight was almost exclusively 7D. The dynamic range of the 6D beats the 7D hands-down. 7D AF, AF points, frame rate is way above 6D capabilities. My 7D captures almost double the frames my 6D does in the same amount of time. I don't regret buying the 6D just for the increased ability to shoot well at night, and for better detail in my landscapes. The 7D has survived so long because as a new breed it was far superior to the xxD line, and its features pushed the xD line; though it lacked xD DR & ISO capabilities most of these issues could be addressed in ppc. Marry the best features of the two bodies together for a sure winner in the 7D MkII.
> ...





> They already did - it's called the 5DIII and Canon would like you to buy one.


+1 My sentiments exactly. Any previous 7D, now current 5D Mk III owner will likely agree!


----------



## robertbanksoz (Aug 5, 2013)

Wonder if it will be worth the upgrade. ...


----------



## Krob78 (Aug 5, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...





> The 5d3 of course is a good product if you forget about the first retail price


A lot of us have found the 5d3 to be of course not only a good product but a great product, even when remembering the retail price...


----------



## unfocused (Aug 5, 2013)

Before we wade too deep into the "5DIII makes the 7DII unnecessary" swamp, let's have a bit of a reality check here.

The 5DIII is a wonderful camera and I would love to have one. But, it comes with a minimum price of entry of about $3,500 in the U.S. under the best case scenario (I arrive at that figure by adding the lowest available U.S. prices for the 5DIII with the lowest available prices for the 24-105mm zoom. 7D users simply cannot get to comparable wide focal lengths without purchasing at least one new lens).

That's a entry price that only a tiny fraction of the market can or is willing to bear. So, all of those who smugly declare that 7D users should just switch to a 5DIII...well...that's not possible or practical or desirable for the majority of 7D owners.

The 6D may be a slightly more affordable option, but it still comes with a heavy cost of entry, the same lens costs and is a significant step down from the 7D in everything but sensor size. The 6D may be a good replacement for the 60D, but it falls short as a good replacement for the 7D (Supplement, yes. Replacement, no).

My interests in photography are eclectic. I shoot portraits for starving actors, I shoot birds and other wildlife for the challenge, nature to soothe my soul and the streets to document the world I live in. The 7D offers the flexibility to do that. The 5DIII may be a better option, but I simply can't justify the cost of entry. 

Too many times, on this forum, we pretend that people should be so dedicated to the craft to be willing to pay any price for the best tools, but the reality is, very few consumers can or will make that choice.

I am certain Canon understands that and that is why they will refresh the 7D with new features and options at a price that the market will bear. I am happy for all of those on this forum who can afford to invest in the 5DIII and hope that eventually, I may be able to as well. But, let's not pretend it's an option for most photographers.


----------



## Zv (Aug 5, 2013)

Does anyone here actually need a 7D2? What would be the distinguishing feature of a 7D2? Just high fps? Is the jump from 8-10 fps noticeable? Am asking because I haven't tried 10fps. 

It could be that Canon made the original 7D so good that they are finding it hard to improve upon. Sure, it's not perfect but in over 4 years there hasn't really been a need for a replacement.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 5, 2013)

Zv said:


> Does anyone here actually need a 7D2? What would be the distinguishing feature of a 7D2? Just high fps? Is the jump from 8-10 fps noticeable? Am asking because I haven't tried 10fps.
> 
> It could be that Canon made the original 7D so good that they are finding it hard to improve upon. Sure, it's not perfect but in over 4 years there hasn't really been a need for a replacement.




I'd encourage a read of the previous posts. The AF system of the 7D is dated and misses shots compared to the state of the art system that the 1DX and 5D3 enjoy. That single feature alone is worth it if you are a sports/wildlife shooter.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Aug 5, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone here actually need a 7D2? What would be the distinguishing feature of a 7D2? Just high fps? Is the jump from 8-10 fps noticeable? Am asking because I haven't tried 10fps.
> ...



+1. 

Also, An additional 1-2 stop improvement in ISO performance would be welcome. I don't expect it to match the 5DIII or 6D, but a marginal boost in ISO is important. And, like the autofocus, the camera's weather sealing was very good when released, but it could be upgraded to match at least the 5DIII.

However, Zv is correct in that even four years after introduction, the 7D remains pretty much at the top of the APS-C world. Canon set a high bar with the 7D. Owners are very loyal and want the next upgrade to again set the standards for the industry.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 5, 2013)

Zv said:


> Does anyone here actually need a 7D2? What would be the distinguishing feature of a 7D2? Just high fps? Is the jump from 8-10 fps noticeable? Am asking because I haven't tried 10fps.



It is noticeable, but not "I need to sell my 7d for the 7D II" noticeable.



> It could be that Canon made the original 7D so good that they are finding it hard to improve upon. Sure, it's not perfect but in over 4 years there hasn't really been a need for a replacement.



This is precisely what happened. 


------------------

http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 5, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Before we wade too deep into the "5DIII makes the 7DII unnecessary" swamp, let's have a bit of a reality check here.
> 
> The 5DIII is a wonderful camera and I would love to have one. But, it comes with a minimum price of entry of about $3,500 in the U.S. under the best case scenario (I arrive at that figure by adding the lowest available U.S. prices for the 5DIII with the lowest available prices for the 24-105mm zoom. 7D users simply cannot get to comparable wide focal lengths without purchasing at least one new lens).
> 
> ...



Appreciate the comments. Entirely fair.

Consider if you are a sports/wildlife shooter on the longer end of things, and you currently own a good body (7D) and a good lens (300mm F/4L IS).

Upgrading to FF and capturing similar length / aperture* images would require: 
(*let's couch the FF vs. APS-C DOF considerations for now...)


'High_er_ but not Highest' end -- 5D3 for $3,500 and 500mm F/4L IS II for $10,300 = $13,800
'Middle' end -- 6D for $2,000 and a 400mm F/4 DO IS or 500mm F/4 IS I for (guess) $6,000 = $8,000
'Low' end -- 6D for $2,000 and 1.4x T/C for $450 = $2,450

Or you can pony up the expected $1800-$2500 (depending on what features they end up offering) for a 7D2 and you are good to go. One might argue that the IQ you'd get from the 7D2 and the 300m F/4 IS might trump even the 'middle' end above as the 6D will miss a bunch of shots that the 7D2's improved AF will nail -- and _that's_ why I think the 7D2 should command a higher price than the 6D.

So that defines a specific need (longer shooters) that will _always_ have a compelling value-proposition to stay with APS-C. Yes, you can opt for a different upgrade path, the double whammy for FF upgraders is clear: You need to buy the FF rig _and_ get longer glass.

For folks shooting closer subjects, the economics of upgrading are much less toxic. There is an immediate need to pitch EF-S glass and trade up for a standard zoom, but that's about it. There's also the 'adjusting to lengths in your bag' you need to get used to without the 1.6x in the mix, but it's like getting used to a new pair of jeans -- it feels natural after a while. 

But Unfocused is dead on. APS-C will be here for a very long time, and not just for soccer moms with Rebels.

- A


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 5, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Too many times, on this forum, we pretend that people should be so dedicated to the craft to be willing to pay any price for the best tools, but the reality is, very few consumers can or will make that choice.
> 
> I am certain Canon understands that and that is why they will refresh the 7D with new features and options at a price that the market will bear. I am happy for all of those on this forum who can afford to invest in the 5DIII and hope that eventually, I may be able to as well. But, let's not pretend it's an option for most photographers.




You claim that too many are focused on paying the highest price for the best tools, and then you insist Canon release an update to the 7D with at best marginal improvements.

Wouldn't just using and enjoying the 7D fit with the first paragraph in your post?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 5, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Before we wade too deep into the "5DIII makes the 7DII unnecessary" swamp, let's have a bit of a reality check here.
> 
> The 5DIII is a wonderful camera and I would love to have one. But, it comes with a minimum price of entry of about $3,500 in the U.S. under the best case scenario (I arrive at that figure by adding the lowest available U.S. prices for the 5DIII with the lowest available prices for the 24-105mm zoom. 7D users simply cannot get to comparable wide focal lengths without purchasing at least one new lens).
> 
> ...





Zv said:


> Does anyone here actually need a 7D2? What would be the distinguishing feature of a 7D2? Just high fps? Is the jump from 8-10 fps noticeable? Am asking because I haven't tried 10fps.
> 
> It could be that Canon made the original 7D so good that they are finding it hard to improve upon. Sure, it's not perfect but in over 4 years there hasn't really been a need for a replacement.



I shoot with a 60D. I have outgrown the focus system and wish to upgrade. The 70D is better, but I am really looking for the 7D2. I really don't use high iso's a lot, so high iso performance, while nice, is not critical to me. I am far more interested in more pixels on the target. I can spend $2000 on a 7D2 and $1200 on a 400F5.6, or I can spend $3000 on a 5D3 and $10,000 on a 600F4. Yes, the 5D3 combo takes better pictures, but I can not afford the extra $10,000 to do so...... There's the 7D2 market in a nutshell.

Also, I take my 60D and 400F5.6 with me on canoe trips. It is a lot easier to carry than a 5D3 and a 600F4..... There another reason for the 7D2.....


----------



## jrista (Aug 5, 2013)

Its funny that the rumor initially states that the specs for the 7D II are no where near finalized, then rather concretely states it *will* have the same 20.2mp sensor from the 70D. 

Good thing it is just a rumor, however if it does get the "same old sensor" (registered trademark of Canon! ), then it better have some particularly compelling features otherwise (really good AF, deep frame buffer, 10fps, etc.) Even if the sensor was only 18mp, it should really demonstrate some significant technological improvement over Canon's previous sensors. Having used the 600/4 II on the 7D, its noise performance is really poor from ISO 1600 on...I wouldn't want to see the 7D II get "the same old sensor tech" with any pixel density.

With the release date push, it looks like I'll be getting a 5D III within the next few months.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 5, 2013)

Zv said:


> Does anyone here actually need a 7D2? What would be the distinguishing feature of a 7D2? Just high fps? Is the jump from 8-10 fps noticeable? Am asking because I haven't tried 10fps.
> 
> It could be that Canon made the original 7D so good that they are finding it hard to improve upon. Sure, it's not perfect but in over 4 years there hasn't really been a need for a replacement.



Well the low ISO DR is pretty far out of date. For those who only have aps-c that could be a huge deal (and it's not like Canon has anything that does all that much better in FF in that regard anyway). We are talking like 3 stops out of current tech and that is very easily noticeable (for scenes that contain a lot of DR that you desire to be captured only of course).

The AF while it is faster and has more points than the xxD line and can be a bit more precise is still very clearly not to to 5 or 1 series level precision and the tracking, other than seemingly for surfing, is a far cry from 5 or 1 series IMO, especially for stuff like soccer and football where it seems to be a lot closer to the old xxD levels than 5 or 1 series levels. And yet this is supposed to be a body focusing on AF and action so it really could use their top level AF and not a souped up but clearly based on low tier AF.

The dual-phase AF thing would be neat.

Most copies tend to suffer from varying degrees of vertical gain banding and it has a heavily green split CFA so debayer makes it a bit softer per pixel than it otherwise would need be.

While the high ISO on it is pretty good for APS-C, if they used 1DX/6D tech in it it could pick up an admittedly minor maybe a trace more than 1/3 stop SNR and a more noticeable 1+ stops of DR at high ISO.

The movie mode is pretty poor by current standards, aliasing, moire, very soft, low DR, poor SNR, poor usability features. Now ML does get around some of the usability and ML RAW might get around the softness and some of the poor DR and a tiny bit if the poor SNR, but it won't fix the aliasing and moire. So for those wanting to use a 7 series for movies it could be improved a lot.

Going 8 to 10-12fps could help a little bit in that you might go from a near two guaranteed key frames per action sequence to neat two guaranteed ideal key frames per action sequence (and at times you might get a third at 12fps) and since AF does miss at times and what not it gives more chance that at least one key frame is in perfect focus (you hope).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Short-sighted and even worse, annoying for their users.
> ...



And many who do care don't even post in forums or barely at all since they aren't into tech discussion or rumors.



> But let me get this straight - focusing on selling more cameras than the competition is short-sighted? Tell me, what are you doing with your Betamax tapes? And are you enjoying the plethora of new movies being released in the HD-DVD format?



Not directly related and complicated factors there (in blu-rays case it had better tech and better everything across the board) of course if they were to improve their sensors Canon sales would surely plummet!! More DR. blech!!!! We don't want that!! NO SALE!!!




> AF designed for video use. Pro video shooters use AF? That would be news to me, and to Canon as well. Fast video AF is a consumer-oriented feature, and quite frankly will likely be a very attractive feature to Rebel/xxxD owners, the likely target demographic of the 70D.



It depends, mostly not for serious movie movie shooting where you spend 30 minutes setting each scene and using marks, etc. For run and gun video news reporter pros?? It surely could help in some cases to get better wildlife/macro wildlife footage even for pros. Even in general, since it really works well, it could help pros even more traditional scenarios given that Canon doesn't see fit to give the 7D movie mode any usability tools at all, no hires HDMI out, no magic focus box, no focus peaking, etc. A great many users would likely also use it in scenarios were they are not going to be doing professional focus pulling too. I'm sure, from what I've seen, it could help produce more pro level video footage for sports like surfing.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 5, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> So that defines a specific need (longer shooters) that will _always_ have a compelling value-proposition to stay with APS-C. Yes, you can opt for a different upgrade path, the double whammy for FF upgraders is clear: You need to buy the FF rig _and_ get longer glass.



If Canon really wants people to upgrade to FF bodies, they need to start building *only* high-megapixel sensors. Make FF sensors with the same pixel density as the APS-C sensors. If the user prefers the lower noise that the existing sensors provide, they can either shoot in a lower-resolution mode that does binning or do the binning in post-processing. Either way, the quality loss for them is negligible, but the benefit for people upgrading from APS-C who still need the reach of APS-C is enormous.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 5, 2013)

M.ST said:


> Prototypes for a 7D Mark II now exist over a year, but if I look at the 70D and 6D price I think that there is no space for an 7D Mark II between the mentioned cameras.



How not? What in the world does the 6D have to do with the 7D2?? One is supposed to be a high-speed, heavy reach, action AF camera and one is a low reach, sluggish, bottom-level body performance camera that simply focuses on delivering FF characteristics and FF sensor quality to market.



> It seen so, that the 70D IS the new 7D Mark II. But without CF cards the camera has no change to go in the bag of pros.



Then how come we directly heard from Canon, not a rumor, direct press release, that they very much planned on releasing a 7D2? And if the 70D was a new decision yeah why no CF cards? Why pull spot and area AF?



> The new pro camera (in different versions) with the new sensor design is out for testing for a long time and works very well, but there is no reaction from Canon if you ask for the product introduction.



"but there is no reaction from Canon"

well this sounds believable, fits right in with their attitude of more than half a decade ago where their rep literally bragged how they were kings of the hill and they no reason to do anything anymore but rule on top doing nothing for the king has no need to do anything new


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 5, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Listen I prefer the 5D3 for most things too, but I sure as heck miss my 7D when I shoot wildlife and when I had both in bag for a while I sure used the 7D 90% of the time for that sort of stuff.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 5, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Listen I prefer the 5D3 for most things too, but I sure as heck miss my 7D when I shoot wildlife and when I had both in bag for a while I sure used the 7D 90% of the time for that sort of stuff.

And am I more excited by a 5D4 with same fps as 5D3 but more reach and DR and video than a 7D2 yeah, but 7D2 still has a place for many and I doubt the 5D4 will quite manage to get us to 7D2 reach levels yet (although they could make a 75MP camera that is slow in 75MP mode (of course you would give up top ISO performance for when things are close though which wouldn't always be so good) and then fast in aps-c crop, although sadly canon seems to think that is a "nikon way" of doing things.)

Also, not everyone can afford FF. The bodies cost more and some of the standard lenses also cost more if you want to fully take advantage of the sensors performance to the edge.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 5, 2013)

I don't think the 7D IQ is that great, especially on portraits/skin tones, which is why I bought a 5D2 several years back.

Now that I have the 5DIII, the 7D2 would have to be leaps and bounds past the 7D to be interesting.


----------



## dflt (Aug 5, 2013)

Well, hi mpix looks to be imminent... everywhere


```
http://vimeo.com/71666317
```


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 6, 2013)

M.ST said:


> Prototypes for a 7D Mark II now exist over a year, but if I look at the 70D and 6D price I think that there is no space for an 7D Mark II between the mentioned cameras.



But why can't a 7D2 with faster burst rate and superior focus system sit ABOVE the 6D?


----------



## Pi (Aug 6, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > Prototypes for a 7D Mark II now exist over a year, but if I look at the 70D and 6D price I think that there is no space for an 7D Mark II between the mentioned cameras.
> ...



It would be missing more than half of the sensor.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 6, 2013)

Pi said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > M.ST said:
> ...



But the sensor isn't everything..... For the sake of argument, what if you made the 7D2 with the 70D sensor, yet with the features and autofocus capabilities of the 1DX? Where would that sit?

Perhaps the 7D2 will come out with a new mode, one that will make it indispensable for people taking pictures for facebook?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2013)

Pi said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > M.ST said:
> ...



...and the numeral in the name is one digit too high.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 6, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > Prototypes for a 7D Mark II now exist over a year, but if I look at the 70D and 6D price I think that there is no space for an 7D Mark II between the mentioned cameras.
> ...




This is fairly well-covered ground here in the forums. There is a split (I wouldn't hazard a percentage guess) between those who believe that (a) a crop camera, if appropriately spec'd, could warrant a higher asking price than the 6D, and (b) a crop camera should never cost more than a (relatively contemporary) FF camera.

I'm with the former group. The 7D2 represents the pinnacle, the 'standard bearer' for the APS-C format, and should be top of the line in each and every performance metric compared to Canon's other APS-C entries. So though it may lack the pure IQ advantage that FF offers, so many other features -- AF, burst rate, build quality, ergonomics, etc. -- could trump the relatively basic features of the 6D. So, yes, I think the 7D2 will cost more than the 6D, especially if it is coming out as late as they say. (By H2 2014, the 6D may be down around $1700!)

Also, the 7D and 6D products are aimed at different shooters. I've posted 'who shoots what and why' a few times in the past year and I still stand by it:

XXXXD: Cost cost cost. "I cannot buy a film camera any longer", "my high school student son wants to pick up photography", etc.

XXXD: A few key consumer level niceties: touch screen, swivel screen, so-so AF for video. "I just want it to take nice pictures, and occasionally a video", "Do I need a longer lens? Maybe...", etc.

XXD: A thicker grip (I hear this often), top LCD for quick adjustments, less reliance on auto modes. "I've been shooting a while now", "I felt limited by my older camera", etc.

* 7D: Serious shooters (and some pros?) who see APS-C as a strength and not a liability. Better build. Fast burst. "This is the best tool for birding", "I need high burst rate to cover sports for the local paper", "I really like tweaking my lens AF", etc.

6D: Serious shooters who do see APS-C as a liability but don't want to pay for all the bells and whistles. "I have always wanted a FF camera", "It's not the highest end, but you should see the pictures I get with this."*

5D3: Pros, videographers, well-funded enthusiasts, etc. who will pay for IQ and build quality but do not require the apocalypse proof build, cost or size of 1D bodies. "It's solid and doesn't let me down", "Shoosh, we're filming right now", "[Quiet shutter noise at wedding]", etc.

1DX: _Those_ people. "Welcome to my studio", "We're invading Asia. Thought I'd tag along", "It was this or the obsidian steering wheel for my yacht" :

The 6D or 7D being higher or lower on the list is a matter of preference. The debate will always rage on between the 'FF purists' and the 'bigger picture / overall value pragmatists'. Both make fair points.

- A


----------



## Pi (Aug 6, 2013)

Don Haines said:


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



Well, to be above the 6D, _everything_ has to be above.



> For the sake of argument, what if you made the 7D2 with the 70D sensor, yet with the features and autofocus capabilities of the 1DX? Where would that sit?



_Next _ to the 6D?


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 6, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> 6D: Serious shooters who do see APS-C as a liability but don't want to pay for all the bells and whistles. "I have always wanted a FF camera", "It's not the highest end, but you should _see_ the pictures I get with this."[/b]



Also serious travelers who want GPS stamping without requiring an external accessory. I'd have preferred a crop body, but Canon didn't bother to make GPS available in the 70D, so I settled for the 6D.


----------



## jrista (Aug 6, 2013)

Pi said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > M.ST said:
> ...



Perhaps, but megapixel count would be very similar, so spatial resolution will increase, greatly diminishing the difference in physical sensor size. Noise will increase a bit over the 6D, assuming no other technological improvements in the sensor beyond what we see in the 70D. Combine that with superiority in other features (AF, FPS, buffer depth, etc.) and there really isn't any reason the manufacturers list price for the two wouldn't be very similar, identical, or even lending to a higher priced 7D II (i.e. in the event that Canon does indeed do something fairly radical with the 7D II sensor...say move to 3-layer, move to a 180nm design, whatever it may be, so long as it is accompanied by a meaningful improvement in APS-C IQ over the 7D's 18mp sensor.)


----------



## jrista (Aug 6, 2013)

Don Haines said:


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



Haha, love the cat face icon.


----------



## drjlo (Aug 6, 2013)

More and more, it looks like I made the right decision to splurge on EOS-M for aps-c fun rather than waiting (and apparently waiting lots more) for the next-gen, awesome, aps-c replacement for 7D.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 6, 2013)

Pi said:


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



Well, since you absolutely love to argue just for the sake of argument- while it is true that a _7_D cannot be higher up than a 6D because Canon makes it clear in the naming convention, it would be possible for a camera with a smaller sensor to be higher. Remember those days when the APS-H 1D used be ranked above the 5D? Only a sensor doesn't make a camera. Neither size, nor DR.

In any case, even though the 7DII is not going to be ranked above 6D, it is always possible it will be priced higher. 6D seems to be practically undersold to entice people to go FF, and I wonder if Canon will want to price the 7DII lower if they include features that will set it far apart from the 70D.


----------



## Pi (Aug 6, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> Well, since you absolutely love to argue just for the sake of argument- while it is true that a _7_D cannot be higher up than a 6D because Canon makes it clear in the naming convention, it would be possible for a camera with a smaller sensor to be higher. Remember those days when the APS-H 1D used be ranked above the 5D? Only a sensor doesn't make a camera. Neither size, nor DR.
> 
> In any case, even though the 7DII is not going to be ranked above 6D, it is always possible it will be priced higher. 6D seems to be practically undersold to entice people to go FF, and I wonder if Canon will want to price the 7DII lower if they include features that will set it far apart from the 70D.



Speaking about arguing for the sake of the arguing - what is the ultimate authority which will determine which one is higher?


----------



## Pi (Aug 6, 2013)

jrista said:


> Perhaps, but megapixel count would be very similar, so spatial resolution will increase, greatly diminishing the difference in physical sensor size.



Ironically, with almost infinite pixel count, the advantage of the FF sensor would _increase_ and would reach the limit 1.6x (in the center). And this is with the same lens and same f-stop. For equivalent ones, it is even more (think about 50/1.2 on crop vs. 85/2 on FF). You are forgetting the enlargement factor. With fast lenses wide open, an increased pixel count does not help you much.



> Noise will increase a bit over the 6D, assuming no other technological improvements in the sensor beyond what we see in the 70D. Combine that with superiority in other features (AF, FPS, buffer depth, etc.) and there really isn't any reason the manufacturers list price for the two wouldn't be very similar, identical, or even lending to a higher priced 7D II (i.e. in the event that Canon does indeed do something fairly radical with the 7D II sensor...say move to 3-layer, move to a 180nm design, whatever it may be, so long as it is accompanied by a meaningful improvement in APS-C IQ over the 7D's 18mp sensor.)



I am not talking about price.


----------



## whothafunk (Aug 6, 2013)

Pi said:


> It would be missing more than half of the sensor.


and that's the only thing 6D offers. better IQ and ISO. 7D(2) on the other hand:
- FPS
- AF speed, spread and points
- CF
- buffer
- 100% VF and 1x magnification
- more custom functions
- better weather sealing and durability
- (Dual, +?) Digic 6 processor for the 7D2
- the tag "TOP APS-C"

and the list goes on. i completely see how its priced above 6D, even though i would rather see it not get above it. but in 1 year time, when 7D2 is supposedly released, 6D's price will plummet due to its age and.. you know the rest.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 6, 2013)

whothafunk said:


> - 100% VF and 1x magnification



A ff will still have a larger ovf because of the larger mirror, a decisive advantage vs. crop and a reason on it's own to use a ff. If you enjoy a good laugh, grab an analog eos from the 90s and look through the 35mm vf... and then break out in tears when returning to your high tech crop peephole.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2013)

whothafunk said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > It would be missing more than half of the sensor.
> ...



Interestingly, except for CF as a difference, your list sounds a just like a comparison between the 5DII and 7D. Which of those was more expensive?


----------



## candyman (Aug 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> whothafunk said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...


That could have been a marketing trick to push people buying 7D (and many did) to take a chance on more people buying the future (more expensive) update on the 7D?


----------



## insanitybeard (Aug 6, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Also, An additional 1-2 stop improvement in ISO performance would be welcome. I don't expect it to match the 5DIII or 6D, but a marginal boost in ISO is important. And, like the autofocus, the camera's weather sealing was very good when released, but it could be upgraded to match at least the 5DIII.
> 
> However, Zv is correct in that even four years after introduction, the 7D remains pretty much at the top of the APS-C world. Canon set a high bar with the 7D. Owners are very loyal and want the next upgrade to again set the standards for the industry.



Agree with this and you were bang on the money (as usual) with your earlier post, If I wanted to go full frame and keep the features of the 7D it has to be the 5D III, but it's so much more expensive- in the UK, the 7D can be got for under £1000, but the 5D III is around £2300. For me, that's an enormous difference and not one I can afford or justify at the present time, especially as I would also need to get a 24-105 or 24-70 2.8 II etc as a standard zoom.

Just as a side note, you said the 7D's weathersealing could be improved to match the 5D III, I thought they were on a par with eachother?


----------



## greger (Aug 6, 2013)

A rumor that a 7D ll will be available the second half of 2014 is just another rumor. That's why we all are here to talk about rumors. Until Canon posts a notice about a 7D ll like they did for 70D I will believe No 7D ll. I think Canon wants the semi pro to go FF, the 6D is a good start, the 5D lll is a great start. Cost and available funds will always be an important factor. Personally I am liking my 7D more and more every time I use it. It'll have to break before I replace it. I wonder if Canon is thinking "If it ain't broke don't fix it!" " or replace it!"


----------



## jrista (Aug 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> whothafunk said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



Keep in mind the timeframe. Five years ago FF was much more expensive to manufacture than it is today. The fact that the 6D, still relatively new, sells for as little as $1700, is quite telling here. I am not sure that a comparison of the 5D II and 7D from four to five years ago is good enough to predict the future in the case of the 6D/7DII of next year.

The two cameras are different, for sure...but that does not mean they don't both qualify for the same level of "pro" gear. Functionally, the 7D II (at least as the rumors stand now) sounds like a much more professional, higher grade part than the 6D...regardless of what the numbers may seem to indicate.


----------



## Pi (Aug 6, 2013)

jrista said:


> Keep in mind the timeframe. Five years ago FF was much more expensive to manufacture than it is today. The fact that the 6D, still relatively new, sells for as little as $1700, is quite telling here.



Today's BH prices:

60D: $600 (-1)
6D: $2,000 (-1)

More than three times more expensive. 

Years ago, you could by a Rebel only for $600, and I am not even adjusting for inflation. Going back further, I think I paid $800 for my 350D (with the crappy kit lens), several years after it was released.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 6, 2013)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > whothafunk said:
> ...



Agree completely.

I still see "Not having to buying somewhat expensive non-EF-S standard zoom and comically expensive longer glass" as a huge selling _feature_ that is worth driving up the price of the 7D2.

As much as many folks on this forum believe there is a not-so-subtle attempt by Canon to push all 'gear spenders' into the FF column, isn't there also value in selling a very pricey rig that obviates the need to buy new glass? Clearly, capable shooters would pay a premium to get state of the art gear _without having to make the FF plunge_.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2013)

jrista said:


> Keep in mind the timeframe. Five years ago FF was much more expensive to manufacture than it is today. The fact that the 6D, still relatively new, sells for as little as $1700, is quite telling here.



It seems that Canon's fab procedure hasn't changed, at least from what we can tell. Has the cost of silicon wafers come down that much? Or could it be that Canon was reaping very high profit margins on the presumed high cost of a FF sensor, and now they've decided to push more units at a lower profit margin, as an alternative strategy to drive the bottom line?

Just sayin'. Not that I'm cynical, or anything... :


----------



## Pi (Aug 6, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> I still see "Not having to buying somewhat expensive non-EF-S standard zoom and comically expensive longer glass" as a huge selling _feature_ that is worth driving up the price of the 7D2.
> 
> As much as many folks on this forum believe there is a not-so-subtle attempt by Canon to push all 'gear spenders' into the FF column, isn't there also value in selling a very pricey rig that obviates the need to buy new glass?



Not really. If you want to stay with cheap but very good solutions like the 18-55 IS on crop, you cannot find an FF equivalent to that, since Canon stopped the development of the slow EF zooms (still, the really cheap 28-135 can easily beat the more expensive 15-85, http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=116&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=675&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=1). But the "cheap" EF-S zooms on crop come at a price - slower (in eq. terms) and resolve less. Nothing wrong with paying less for a system which offers less but - you get what you pay for.

Same thing with telephoto - you will pay more for the same reach with FF but you will get more. Actually, you do not always pay more: you can get a longer but slower (but the same physical aperture, i.e., equivalent) lens, when available. Or you can get an 1.4 extender. 

Going to the more mainstream FL's; with FF, you may end up paying _much less_ for similar performance, and you can get performance (wide open, etc.) that you cannot get with crop at any price. The 135L, for example, performs significantly better on FF than the 85L on crop; the 200/2.8 on FF beats the 135L on crop; the 35/2 IS on FF would beat the 24LII on crop, etc.; and in all those examples, I am comparing lenses allowing (about) the same amount of light, i.e., equivalent ones. 

So in many situations, the crop body forces you to buy _more_ expensive glass to get close (but not quite) to what FF can do. This does not mean that there is no place for crop bodies on the market.


----------



## jrista (Aug 6, 2013)

Pi said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Keep in mind the timeframe. Five years ago FF was much more expensive to manufacture than it is today. The fact that the 6D, still relatively new, sells for as little as $1700, is quite telling here.
> ...



I am not sure how that is relevant to the part of my answer you quoted. The 60D is an APS-C part, and was never part of either Neuros post I replied to nor my post. 

I was explicitly stating that five years ago, manufacturing a FF sensor was much more expensive than it is today, while manufacturing an APS-C sensor hasn't really gotten much cheaper. The drop in cost for FF relative to only a slightly lower cost for APS-C, as well as the fact that you can easily pick up a 6D for around $1700 on sale, would indicate that sensor size is not the primary price driver for these cameras in this bracket these days. A $2000 list price 6D is therefor not necessarily better in any significant way than a $2000 7D II. On the contrary, the 7D II could hypothetically offer far more features, including more professional grade features, than the 6D.

As has been stated frequently before on these forums, especially by Neuro, the sensor is often one of the least important features for many types of photography. As such, why would it be the sole thing that determines how "professional" a professional grade camera is?


----------



## jrista (Aug 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Keep in mind the timeframe. Five years ago FF was much more expensive to manufacture than it is today. The fact that the 6D, still relatively new, sells for as little as $1700, is quite telling here.
> ...



I do believe 300mm wafers have come down in cost. I remember them still having some challenges five to six years ago with defect rates on them (this is pretty agnostic of industry...not specific to sensor fabrication). It is obviously a less serious problem for tiny chips like GPUs and CPUs or other ICs. Growing the wafer crystals has become more refined over the years, in no small part to some of the advancements made while trying to perfect the process for growing 450mm wafer crystals (which, as far as I know, has still not been taken up by any IC manufacturing industry...there is apparently a very high initial cost to jumping that has to be recouped, something no manufacturer seems willing to deal with as of yet). 

As for Canon's real margins, honestly can't say there. I suspect they incurred the same kinds of high costs initially to move to a 300mm wafer, just like everyone else...however once those costs were recouped, it is entirely likely they were selling the 5D II at significant margins. That wouldn't be mutually exclusive with any drop in price for fabricating on 300mm wafers, however. Given that it is Canon, I'm sure they raked in the dough for as long as they could. ;P


----------



## Pi (Aug 6, 2013)

jrista said:


> As has been stated frequently before on these forums, especially by Neuro, the sensor is often one of the least important features for many types of photography.



I am not sure what Neuro actually said, but the fact is that the sensor _size_ (not necessarily mp count or DR, or noise) is one of the most important factors in many types of photography, excluding macro and telephoto. To be more precise, it is one of the most important factors when you care, but then the same applies to lens choices, smartphone cameras vs. more serious ones, MF/LF vs. 35mm, etc.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 6, 2013)

Pi said:


> I am not sure what Neuro actually said, but the fact is that the sensor _size_ (not necessarily mp count or DR, or noise) is one of the most important factors in many types of photography, excluding macro and telephoto. To be more precise, it is one of the most important factors when you care, but then the same applies to lens choices, smartphone cameras vs. more serious ones, MF/LF vs. 35mm, etc.



Nope. At this stage in the game sensor size matters at high ISO and if you want to use certain lenses at their intended focal lengths. FF clearly has an advantage in low light photography, astrophotography, and in fast/wide primes and T/S lenses. People will cite DoF as a FF advantage but it cuts both ways.

APS-C can have an advantage in size (though this isn't really the case with the 7D line) and cost for a given level of lens IQ and/or zoom range.

Aside from that 35mm vs. APS-C sensor size is a non-issue. The vast majority of photographs can be produced with either.


----------



## jrista (Aug 6, 2013)

Pi said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > As has been stated frequently before on these forums, especially by Neuro, the sensor is often one of the least important features for many types of photography.
> ...



Sure, of course the converse is true (I never stated otherwise). My point is that the fact that the 6D has a larger sensor than the 7D II will likely have does not intrinsically put it at a higher or lower ranking on any hypothetical scale. They are different tools for different jobs. For those who need a FF sensor because it IS the most important factor, the 6D and 5D III offer excellent options. For those who need an APS-C sensor in a camera with high FPS and excellent AF, the 7D II would, for them, be the better choice than the 6D for sure, and in some cases even better than the 5D III, and certainly a far more accessible option than the 1D X (even at a price point of $2500!)

I'm just trying to debunk the notion that the 6D, simply because of its model number and sensor size, therefor must be better or higher ranked or more professional than the 7D line. I would put the two at an equal level or tier of professional grade DSLR equipment, designed for different use cases and photography types, with feature sets to match.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 6, 2013)

Pi said:


> So in many situations, the crop body forces you to buy _more_ expensive glass to get close (but not quite) to what FF can do. This does not mean that there is no place for crop bodies on the market.



Only when you force absurd rules of "equality" on the comparison as you did in all of your examples. I roll my eyes and laugh when FF fans do this in forums. "Oh, I own a 135 f/2L so you would just HAVE to buy an 85 f/1.2L to be EQUIVALENT to me." No one is trying to be "equivalent" to FF down to the precise mm / subject distance / field depth. No one shoots like that and no one cares. Do FF users buy and adjust their lenses to be "equivalent" to MF shooters? LF? Such silliness is reserved for forum debates, not real life.

A 135 f/2L might be better then an 85 f/1.2L wide open, but it's not better then itself on FF vs. crop. (At least not after a touch more sharpening on crop which is true of all lenses but also a non issue.) "But DoF!!!" Yeah, usually I want a little more DoF, not less. 9/10 I find the shallow DoF on FF to be a frustration and not an advantage. And if you understand bokeh, you understand why there will be little to no difference in background blur in many situations. (Hint: for detail well outside the plane of focus the physical aperture size is the driving factor, not the format or DoF.)

Same thing for comparing one lens at f/8 and one at f/5. No one shoots like that. No one stands in broad daylight and thinks "on FF I would shoot f/8, but I want the EXACT same DoF on crop so I better shoot f/5." It's insulting to even suggest such nonsense.

There are areas where a given combination of lens and IQ is cheaper on crop (i.e. UWA zoom) and areas where it's cheaper on FF (i.e. fast "normal" prime). For most uses crop is cheaper overall with equal performance, though there are areas where FF clearly has an IQ advantage.


----------



## Pi (Aug 6, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > So in many situations, the crop body forces you to buy _more_ expensive glass to get close (but not quite) to what FF can do. This does not mean that there is no place for crop bodies on the market.
> ...



This thread was more civil before you got involved. Please keep your emotions for yourself.


----------



## Pi (Aug 6, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure what Neuro actually said, but the fact is that the sensor _size_ (not necessarily mp count or DR, or noise) is one of the most important factors in many types of photography, excluding macro and telephoto. To be more precise, it is one of the most important factors when you care, but then the same applies to lens choices, smartphone cameras vs. more serious ones, MF/LF vs. 35mm, etc.
> ...



DOF cuts one way only. When you want to go past, say, f/22 on DOF, diffraction limits resolution so much that you do not gain anything. There is no limit of how deep DOF you can get with any format. There is a limit however, with the available lenses, how shallow DOF you can get.



> APS-C can have an advantage in size (though this isn't really the case with the 7D line) and cost for a given level of lens IQ and/or zoom range.



Actually, the cost benefit comes at a price: IQ. Most people would get more IQ that they want or need, no doubt about that. But APS-C is rarely a cost-effective way to get the same IQ, when this is possible, except in some specialized cases like macro and extreme telephoto, maybe. It is a great value, though.


----------



## Pi (Aug 6, 2013)

jrista said:


> Sure, of course the converse is true (I never stated otherwise). My point is that the fact that the 6D has a larger sensor than the 7D II will likely have does not intrinsically put it at a higher or lower ranking on any hypothetical scale.



So we actually agree. I said _next_ several times, not _above _ or _below_. 



> For those who need an APS-C sensor in a camera with high FPS and excellent AF, the 7D II would, for them, be the better choice than the 6D for sure, and in some cases even better than the 5D III, and certainly a far more accessible option than the 1D X (even at a price point of $2500!)



Not so sure about the AF. The 7D has more advanced but less accurate AF (aside from tracking and advanced capabilities) than the 5D2. Format differences play role here, too. In equivalent terms, the 7D's AF is f/4.5 (!).


----------



## mr few shots (Aug 6, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/08/eos-7d-mark-ii-information-cr2/\"></glusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/08/eos-7d-mark-ii-information-cr2/\">Tweet</a></div>
> <p><strong>Canon EOS 7D Mark II
> 
> 
> ...


not the best news if true
I was hanging out for a 7D II being released this year in the hope of notable improvements as I liked the 1.6 crop effect and pixel density and the fps is higher than my 5D III
But it is the ISO performance that would have to improve for me to warrant buying one as I tend to shoot wildlife and good ISO performance is essential when unable to afford the big fast lenses and having used a friends one I have been a little bit deterred by the current ISO performance although it is not bad by any means I would just prefer better so bring on a 7D II with improved ISO and 10 fps wouldn't be sneezed at either.
I am a patient man though


----------



## jrista (Aug 6, 2013)

Pi said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, of course the converse is true (I never stated otherwise). My point is that the fact that the 6D has a larger sensor than the 7D II will likely have does not intrinsically put it at a higher or lower ranking on any hypothetical scale.
> ...



Sorry, guess I missed that (or maybe mistakenly attributed someone elses comment to you...apologies.) Glad we agree. 



Pi said:


> > For those who need an APS-C sensor in a camera with high FPS and excellent AF, the 7D II would, for them, be the better choice than the 6D for sure, and in some cases even better than the 5D III, and certainly a far more accessible option than the 1D X (even at a price point of $2500!)
> 
> 
> 
> Not so sure about the AF. The 7D has more advanced but less accurate AF (aside from tracking and advanced capabilities) than the 5D2. Format differences play role here, too. In equivalent terms, the 7D's AF is f/4.5 (!).



I agree that the 7D's AF is advanced but inconsistent (even when tracking, even on slow mode, it still tends to jump around far too much). Its probably my biggest complaint with it, and why I sincerely hope the 7D II gets something much more like the 61pt AF of the 5D III/1D X. Accuracy, precision, and consistency would make the 7D II a much more viable "mini 1D X".

I'm curious about the f/4.5 bit...how exactly does that work? Is that only for the outer points? (I believe the center AF point is still f/2.8 compatible like with most Canon AF systems.)


----------



## Etienne (Aug 6, 2013)

To summarize: 

Full-Frame is better at everything, Crop is cheaper.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 6, 2013)

Pi said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I still see "Not having to buying somewhat expensive non-EF-S standard zoom and comically expensive longer glass" as a huge selling _feature_ that is worth driving up the price of the 7D2.
> ...



In some cases, the more expensive glass offsets the greater expense of going FF altogether. And in some cases, you can actually make do with a cheaper glass. For example, don't you think Canon can charge few hundred dollars more to the birder who can now make do with a 500mm instead of a 800mm? Of course, he will not get the same quality, DoF, precision, etc. in a 7D vs a 1Dx/5DIII- but he might not need it, or might not want it, or might not be able to afford it. Sure, he can use FF and crop, but even then he would be paying more anyway, wouldn't he? Given his situation, it might not be an option! So, in theory it is possible to up-sell an APS-C camera because it will reduce the overall cost. At the end of the day, going APS-C IS a compromise in IQ- whether for the sake of money, weight, frame rate, etc.
Each person's preferences are different- otherwise there would have been no landscape photographers in this forum, they would all be lugging medium format cameras in search of better IQ.


----------



## schill (Aug 6, 2013)

Etienne said:


> To summarize:
> 
> Full-Frame is better at everything, Crop is cheaper.



Yeah. I might as well just give up. Why in the world did I ever buy my 7D in the first place. 

I guess I should dig up my Elan IIE.


----------



## Pi (Aug 6, 2013)

jrista said:


> I'm curious about the f/4.5 bit...how exactly does that work? Is that only for the outer points? (I believe the center AF point is still f/2.8 compatible like with most Canon AF systems.)



It works at f/2.8, of course, but that is equivalent to f/4.5, even though some people do not want to hear about that. Assuming that it has the same precision: 1/3 of DOF or so, it is 1/3 (or whatever) of the f/4.5 eq. DOF. It is like shooting with FF at f/4.5, with 1/3 DOF precision. Well, that is 1/3 of the DOF at f/4.5 Even if f/4.5 is all you need as DOF, your precision is lower. Some empirical evidence on that can be found on the FoCal site.


----------



## jrista (Aug 6, 2013)

Pi said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious about the f/4.5 bit...how exactly does that work? Is that only for the outer points? (I believe the center AF point is still f/2.8 compatible like with most Canon AF systems.)
> ...



Oh, your talking about DOF. Yeah, entirely agree, since you are cropping the field of view you may have to get farther back, so DOF would then increase. *But that assumes you have to move back to frame your subject. *Assuming you use a camera like the 7D II for its reach benefit, then its DOF would be the same as a FF with the same lens from the same distance. The only difference then would simply be that the 7D frame is cropped, resolved by a higher density sensor, and thus appears to be zoomed more. (There are CoC caveats, but that depends on output size, and there is no way to really nail that down....you could enlarge, reduce, crop, whatever.)


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 6, 2013)

Etienne said:


> To summarize:
> 
> Full-Frame is better at everything, Crop is cheaper.



My eyes are bleeding. 

Would love to see a wildlife/sports comparison of 7D vs. 6D. I bet the 7D keeper rate and total number of keepers in an hour of shooting dwarfs the 6D.

- A (a FF guy!)


----------



## Pi (Aug 6, 2013)

jrista said:


> The only difference then would simply be that the 7D frame is cropped, resolved by a higher density sensor, and thus appears to be zoomed more.



And that _decreases _ the DOF and magnifies the AF errors (just another way to say the same thing).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> I find the shallow DoF on FF to be a frustration and not an advantage. And if you understand bokeh, you understand why there will be little to no difference in background blur in many situations. (Hint: for detail well outside the plane of focus the physical aperture size is the driving factor, not the format or DoF.)



Perhaps, if you have good physical separation between subject and background. We don't always have that luxury. In terms of DoF, the crop sensor has NO advantage (except cost). If you have FF and want deeper DoF, you just stop down. The larger sensor offsets any need to raise ISO to maintain shutter speed. If you have APS-C and want shallower DoF, too bad for you. 



dtaylor said:


> For most uses crop is cheaper overall with equal performance, though there are areas where FF clearly has an IQ advantage.



Let me guess - you have a summer home in northern Alaska and a 'winter' home in Patagonia (where you live like a king), both with glass ceilings.  Where I live, we have this thing called night...and in winter, night is long. Indoors often means at least ISO 3200, and I wouldn't say APS-C offers 'equal performance' then.


----------



## schill (Aug 6, 2013)

Not that I have a whole lot of faith in this rumor anyway (it just doesn't make sense to me), but why is all of the discussion for this rumor about FF vs. crop now?

Why? Because that always happens anyway.

Does anyone seriously think that if there is a 7DII, it will be FF?

I can understand a discussion about whether Canon can get better IQ out of a new cropped sensor than they do out of the current sensors, but I don't really see the point about discussing FF (although I have been reading the posts so I guess I can't complain too much).

Maybe there should be a thread specifically about why you should buy a 5DIII now instead of waiting for a 7DII (that's meant to be tongue-in-cheek - I think there are already quite a few of those threads spread across the internet).


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 6, 2013)

Etienne said:


> To summarize:
> 
> Full-Frame is better at everything, Crop is cheaper.



While that is a fact, it does not summarize the original thread. In fact, it does not even relate to the original thread!
People (including some of CR's more illustrious contributors) keep posting in this thread how FF is better than Crop. We get it! Why whip this dead horse? If someone disagrees, be magnanimous and quietly laugh at their ignorance or denial.
This thread is about the "hopes and dreams" of people who cannot upgrade to FF or choose not to. Let's discuss this particular thread within that purview, yeah?


----------



## unfocused (Aug 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > For most uses crop is cheaper overall with equal performance, though there are areas where FF clearly has an IQ advantage.
> ...



Jeez, could you distort that quote a little more? What about "most uses" is hard to understand. And, by the way, dumping a little "winky" emoticon doesn't make an insult any less insulting. 

It's great that you can afford a 1DX to play with, but for the 99.9% of the population that can't afford a $6,500 camera there are limitations they have to live with. 



sagittariansrock said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > To summarize:
> ...



Yes! This comment came in as I was typing.

The truth is, in 95% of cases, the results from a Rebel T3 and a 1DX will be indistinguishable in the hands of a decent photographer. 

Probably 99% of the cases when it comes to the 7D vs. the 5DIII. There are limits to all equipment and the real skill comes in knowing those limits and knowing how to play to the strengths rather than just sitting around gloating about how your big equipment gives you so much more satisfaction. If you know how to use it, you can get and give great satisfaction from little equipment.


----------



## Pi (Aug 6, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Probably 99% of the cases when it comes to the 7D vs. the 5DIII.



I assign very low probability for your "probably" to be close to the truth. I have enough experience with both crop and FF of the same class (excluding the 1D series), and I would say that in 99% of cases (probably ), there is very clear difference when I pp, and in the final result. As I said before, maybe that difference would not matter to most, and that is OK; but it is there, and it matters to me.


----------



## JM Photography (Aug 6, 2013)

unfocused said:


> The truth is, in 95% of cases, the results from a Rebel T3 and a 1DX will be indistinguishable in the hands of a decent photographer.
> 
> Probably 99% of the cases when it comes to the 7D vs. the 5DIII.



Indistinguishable in what sense? You certainly can't mean image quality.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2013)

Pi said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious about the f/4.5 bit...how exactly does that work? Is that only for the outer points? (I believe the center AF point is still f/2.8 compatible like with most Canon AF systems.)
> ...



Sorry, but that's incorrect. The precision of the AF points at a given aperture isn't specified in terms of DoF. Well, ok, maybe it is...but in that case, you keep using the letter F in the abbreviation, and I do not think it means what you think it means. 

The AF sensor precision spec is 'within one depth of focus' for a standard precision point, and 'within 1/3 the depth of focus' for high precision (f/2.8, usually) points. Depth of focus is in 'image space' and is measured in micrometer distances at the AF (and/or image) sensor. It is related to, but distinct from, depth of field, which is measured in larger distances in 'object space'. 

Depth of field is determined by aperture, subject distance, and focal length (and CoC, but since that is related to sensor size, let's leave that out). When we discuss 'shallower DoF on FF', that's a function of either subject distance (with APS-C you're further away for the same framing) or focal length (with APS-C, you need a shorter focal length for the same framing). 

However, depth of _focus_ is relatively insensitive to subject distance (once you're out of true macro range) and focal length. Thus, depth of focus is primarily determined by aperture, and that doesn't change with sensor size. 

OTOH, aa stated, from a practical standpoint the APS-C sensor does have a deeper depth of _field_. So, even though the specified AF sensor precision is the same, the manufacturing tolerances for APS-C could, in theory, be looser. Users of 1-series bodies have long known their AF is' better' than consumer cameras. I wonder if part of the recent improvements in measured precision of AF with the 5DIII and 6D derive at least in part from Canon tightening up the manufacturing tolerances.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2013)

unfocused said:


> The truth is, in 95% of cases, the results from a Rebel T3 and a 1DX will be indistinguishable in the hands of a decent photographer.
> 
> Probably 99% of the cases when it comes to the 7D vs. the 5DIII.



That's just asinine. (Note the lack of a winky emoticon.)


----------



## schill (Aug 6, 2013)

100% of the pictures I take with my 7D are better than the pictures I take with the 5DIII that I do not own.


----------



## Pi (Aug 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but that's incorrect. The precision of the AF points at a given aperture isn't specified in terms of DoF. Well, ok, maybe it is...but in that case, you keep using the letter F in the abbreviation, and I do not think it means what you think it means.
> 
> The AF sensor precision spec is 'within one depth of focus' for a standard precision point, and 'within 1/3 the depth of focus' for high precision (f/2.8, usually) points. Depth of focus is in 'image space' and is measured in micrometer distances at the AF (and/or image) sensor. It is related to, but distinct from, depth of field, which is measured in larger distances in 'object space'.



I believe I was correct. While DOF and depth of focus are different, 1 D-O-focus is defined as the distance at which you get an image blurred by "1 DOF" (with a fixed COC), so 1/3 D-O-focus corresponds approximately to 1/3 DOF blur. 

Another way to look at this: an f/2.8 eq. lens on crop is a f/1.75 one. The crop AF sensor cannot see rays coming from the periphery of such a lens. It has to somehow compensate this by judging the phase difference of f/4.5 (eq.) rays. Of course, those are rays of a shorter FL, so this is not exactly a proof without knowing how the AF system exactly works.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 6, 2013)

We seem to have two groups of people arguing....

One group says that FF has the best image quality.
The other group says that APS-C has the best image quality that they can afford.

Both sides are right.


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 7, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> We seem to have two groups of people arguing....
> 
> One group says that FF has the best image quality.
> The other group says that APS-C has the best image quality that they can afford.
> ...



 Great summary.....

... though there is (at least now) a third group of people that say "option C please, both the above are true!"

And you (& I) are in that group, Don!


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Thanks Neuro for a well written explanation about DOF, sensor size, focal length, distance to subject & background, AF focussing accuracy. etc, etc.

That's the way I have understood & work with these variables for some time in my photography. It's a shame many people who take photos and own cameras / lenses don't understand or apply these. People should practice, practice, practice - like I did years ago - taking photos with a FF at f/2.8 or a APS-C at f/1.8 - and determining how to use and control DOF for impact in photos.

That's the reason I'm waiting for a new 50mm f/1.4 - f/2 lens; that's the focal length and DOF that I enjoy taking many photos on my APS-C (Canon 7D).



> *I wonder if part of the recent improvements in measured precision of AF with the 5DIII and 6D derive at least in part from Canon tightening up the manufacturing tolerances.*



And this, in red font, above is one of the things I'm very keen to see in a 7DmkII. I have worked very well with my 7D's AF (I have again practiced with many photos and different scenarios). I have been able to achieve photos with with my 7D that I'm very happy - including macro using AF (though I usually use MF for most of my macros), BIF, portrait, event photography, etc. There are a few scenarios that I would like the 7D's AF to be somewhat more accurate and consistent (like the 5DmkIII) - but the 7D is no slouch WHEN you know how to use it.

Regards all....

Paul


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 7, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > We seem to have two groups of people arguing....
> ...


I was outside last night doing something stupid..... trying to hand-hold a 60D with a 400F5.6 and a 2x teleconverter and shoot the ISS as it passed overhead. Surprisingly enough, it worked and the resulting image is 22 pixels across. I'd have loved to have a 1DX instead of the 60D and an 800F5.6 instead of the 400F5.6, but with what I can afford to spend, that's just not going to happen. Like so many of us, I have to settle for the best I can afford.


----------



## jrista (Aug 7, 2013)

Pi said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The only difference then would simply be that the 7D frame is cropped, resolved by a higher density sensor, and thus appears to be zoomed more.
> ...



Cropping does not change the depth of field. Depth of field is a function of the lens...the size of the square inside the imaging circle does not have any impact on the depth of field whatsoever. Circle of Confusion (which CAN be, but is not necessarily, a function of the pixel density, plays a role...but as I stated before, that is for all intents and purposes an arbitrary value. You can pick a number, so long as it is not smaller than the pixel pitch times two at the smallest, and use it for both APS-C and FF):


```
DoF = (2 * N * c * f^2 * s^2) / (f^4 - (N^2 * c^2 * s^2))
```

Where:

*N* = F#
*f* = focal length of *LENS* (crop factor need not apply)
*s* = distance to subject
*c* = circle of confusion

Lets say we are scaling for web. CoC is a non factor...we can pick anything, lets say 30 microns (0.03mm, probably far to small, but it really doesn't matter). If we run that for a 600mm lens at f/4 with a subject at 40 feet, we get a DoF of 4" (four inches), or about a third of a foot. With a CoC of 20 microns, we get a DoF of about 2.6". If we pick a CoC that is some happy medium between three times the pixel pitch of the 5D III and 7D cameras (to allow for AA filters and the nature of a bayer design), we get 16 microns. Our DoF is still about 2". If we are scaling down by 2x or more, these differences are moot...the effective CoC is FAR larger than any of these options.

We could even print somewhere near the native size of a 24mp APS-C or a cropped and scaled 23mp FF, something in the range of 16x24. There is a CoC difference, but from a practical standpoint, it doesn't produce a meaningful visual change in such a print. If we scaled up by 2x or so, then we'll probably start seeing a difference in DoF just by observing the print. Is it a meaningful difference? I guess it depends...if your printing at 150ppi on 30x40, its not really going to be the most significant factor affecting IQ or the sharpness of your subject, and your viewers will usually likely be standing back far enough to compensate for the difference. It may be an issue in this case, but so long as the important parts of your subject are in focus (which in my case is usually a birds head and maybe the side of its body, not even necessarily the whole body...anything on the back side of a bird can be entirely out of focus since it isn't visible...and a bird angled towards the lens can have blurry tail feathers and it doesn't really matter so long as the head and eyes are in clear focus), again CoC isn't really going to be the most important of a factor in determining the depth of field.

The real (actual) focal length of the lens, distance to subject, and selected aperture are the things that truly matter when it comes to DoF. Crop factor should NOT be factored into the focal length to produce an effective focal length first. Pixel pitch differences may need to be factored in if one intends to enlarge and print large, especially if they are printing at a higher resolution than 150ppi on anything other than canvas. Pixel pitch differences are effectively a non-issue if one intends to scale down and publish to the web.

In the event that you get closer with a 5D III+600/4 setup and frame the subject identically, then there would indeed be a fairly significant change in DoF. But that would be because the distance to subject shrunk. All things being equal, I would prefer to have the thinner DoF (and getting closer with a 5D III has the potential to pack even more pixels onto the subject than even a 7D can), even when photographing birds...but it is not always a possibility.


----------



## skfla (Aug 7, 2013)

Wow this thread has become un-interesting.


----------



## jrista (Aug 7, 2013)

Pi said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but that's incorrect. The precision of the AF points at a given aperture isn't specified in terms of DoF. Well, ok, maybe it is...but in that case, you keep using the letter F in the abbreviation, and I do not think it means what you think it means.
> ...



Hmm, I know that the image sensor cannot see from the periphery of any EF lens. I was not aware that the AF sensor was also limited in the same way. The point spread is certainly smaller than on a FF sensor (but I always figured that was an advantage as it doesn't have to deal with vignetting). I do not believe that actually limits the sensor's periphery vision. Do you have some kind of reference for this?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 7, 2013)

jrista said:


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



Another way to put it is:
What is the difference between a crop sensor and a FF sensor? An APS-C crop sensor is sampling the central 40% of the image circle, but typically at a higher sampling density. To say that F-stop or depth of field is different between FF and APS-C is to believe that if you shot an image with a FF sensor and then cropped it in photoshop, that the lens would magically change. A crop sensor throws away all but that 40% of light in the center of the image. If you built a FF sensor with the same technology and pixel size as an APS-C sensor, that 40% of pixels in the center of the FF image would be identical to the APS-C image and nobody could tell the difference.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 7, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> One group says that FF has the best image quality.
> The other group says that APS-C has the best image quality that they can afford.
> 
> Both sides are right.



I think some in the second group are also (erroneously) saying APS-C is (almost?) as good as FF, and that is hurting the ego of some in the first group, and feeding the vicious cycle.
The discussion of DoF seems like a breath of fresh air in these circumstances.
Not to digress, but these pointless discussions find so many contributors, but if you need technical help, responses are pretty sparse...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2013)

Pi said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but that's incorrect. The precision of the AF points at a given aperture isn't specified in terms of DoF. Well, ok, maybe it is...but in that case, you keep using the letter F in the abbreviation, and I do not think it means what you think it means.
> ...



Sorry, but I don't think so. First off, an f/2.8 lens on FF is only equivalent to f/1.75 on APS-C if you change the focal length or subject distance. If you change neither, the DoF doesn't change. You don't have the same picture, of course...but the AF sensor neither knows nor cares. Second, your argument about the light from the periphery is irrelevant - neither AF sensor sees light rays from the periphery - for a variety of reasons, the phase detect AF points are clustered in the central region of the image frame (in fact, relative to the image frame, the AF points on crop bodies are actually more widely spaced (e.g., 7D vs. 5DII). (But note that this doesn't apply to the dual pixel CMOS AF, which uses ~80% of the frame. But with what accuracy?)



Pi said:


> ...so this is not exactly a proof without knowing how the AF system exactly works.



FWIW, my info on this comes from a rather lengthy email exchange with Chuck Westfall, who _is_ in a position such that he can know how the AF system exactly works.


----------



## Pi (Aug 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but I don't think so. First off, an f/2.8 lens on FF is only equivalent to f/1.75 on APS-C if you change the focal length or subject distance. If you change neither, the DoF doesn't change. You don't have the same picture, of course...but the AF sensor neither knows nor cares.



If you do not change FL and distance, and keep it at f/2.8, DOF *changes*; cropping makes in shallower. AF errors are magnified. 



> Second, your argument about the light from the periphery is irrelevant - neither AF sensor sees light rays from the periphery - for a variety of reasons, the phase detect AF points are clustered in the central region of the image frame (in fact, relative to the image frame, the AF points on crop bodies are actually more widely spaced (e.g., 7D vs. 5DII). (But note that this doesn't apply to the dual pixel CMOS AF, which uses ~80% of the frame. But with what accuracy?)



The AF sensor does see rays from the periphery (of an f/2.8 lens) even in the center. You can try it at home. Here is a random diagram found with Google:









> FWIW, my info on this comes from a rather lengthy email exchange with Chuck Westfall, who _is_ in a position such that he can know how the AF system exactly works.



I am not sure whether you cite him correctly but I have read things from him that raise some eyebrows.

Lets us make it simple. You do not need to know how the AF system works. Assume that Nikon  told you that their AF sensors are accurate within 1 DO-Focus with f/2.8 lenses. In plain language, that means that your f/2.8 images are just barely in focus, in average, and that does not depend on FL or sensor size, because ... Nikon told you that. Now, you get the same defocus blur with 50/2.8 on crop and 80/2.8 on FF (assume 1.6 crop factor) but the former is 80/4.5 eq., i.e., stopped down.


----------



## fvaron (Aug 7, 2013)

Just to be clear from the 70D manual: GPS is optional with the GPS receiver (sold separately). Wi-Fi is available and the manual is included on the CD-ROM. So it appears this might be available on the 7D Mk II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2013)

I probably shouldn't even try, because it seems that you won't be convinced, but why not one last go? 



Pi said:


> If you do not change FL and distance, and keep it at f/2.8, DOF *changes*; cropping makes in shallower. AF errors are magnified.


Sorry, no. Cropping doesn't change DoF. Cropping _then magnifying_ does change DoF, but sensor size doesn't affect magnification. Basic stuff, and if you don't understand how DoF works, then understanding how AF works is even more problematic.



Pi said:


> The AF sensor does see rays from the periphery (of an f/2.8 lens) even in the center. You can try it at home. Here is a random diagram found with Google:


Ah, yes. A random diagram. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Ever see little notations on diagrams, like 'not to scale'? So, say I select an AF point, like the one on the butterfly: 






According to your diagram, light from the purple flowers at the bottom of the frame, from the OOF brown smudge at the top left corner, light from the OOF yellowish flower (?) under the far right AF point, all of those are 'seen' by my selected AF point? How was focus on the butterfly achieved? Yes, the AF sensor sees light from many parts of the frame (but not the true periphery). But an individual AF point sees light from only a small part of the frame. That's the point of having a point, if you get my point. 

By the way, here's the actual spread of the 7D's AF points and metering zones, in context of the image frame. (Total non sequitur, but when you look at this, you can see that the 1-series feature of spot metering linked to any AF point is pure marketing, since on the 7D there's a single one of the 63 metering zones associated with each of the 19 AF points.)






Each AF point is sampling a small dedicated region of object space (small, but slightly larger than that little box that represents the AF point). Light from that region of object space is split across two parts of a sensor line, and a phase difference (magnitude and direction) is determined. The accuracy of that determination is dependent on the physical baseline separation of the two parts of the sensor (f/2.8 sensor line pairs are physically further apart) and/or the pixel density of the sensor line itself (the latter is how some AF points on the 1DIII, 1DIV, and 1DsIII have f/2.8 accuracy with an f/4 lens). The precision of that determintion is relevant only in the image space (at the AF sensor), and neither focal length subject distance have a significant influence on that precision. 



Pi said:


> Lets us make it simple. You do not need to know how the AF system works. Assume that Nikon told you that their AF sensors are accurate within 1 DO-Focus with f/2.8 lenses. In plain language, that means that your f/2.8 images are just barely in focus, in average, and that does not depend on FL or sensor size, because ... Nikon told you that. Now, you get the same defocus blur with 50/2.8 on crop and 80/2.8 on FF (assume 1.6 crop factor) but the former is 80/4.5 eq., i.e., stopped down.


In fact, I do understand how the AF system works. I don't think you can say the same. But we're back to the sensor size affecting DoF, which as stated above, it does not (directly, only indirectly after you make some other change - focal length or distance to subject - to compensate for the changed angle of view). Why would I assume a Nikon crop was 1.6x? It isn't, it's 1.5x. But ok, assume something incorrect, fine. 50mm f/2.8 on crop and 80mm f/2.8 on FF. The framing is identical. The depth of field of the FF shot is shallower, because the focal length has been changed. But the depth of _focus_ will be approximately the same in both cases, from the perspective of the AF sesnor.


----------



## jrista (Aug 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I probably shouldn't even try, because it seems that you won't be convinced, but why not one last go?








 ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I probably shouldn't even try, because it seems that you won't be convinced, but why not one last go?



I'll give it a try.....

You have two cameras, one is a 51.2 megapixel FF camera, the other is a 20 megapixel APS-C camera. Both have sensors made from the exact same process with the exact same pixel size. The center 40% of the FF sensor is then EXACTLY the same as the APS-C sensor. an image cropped from the central 40% of the FF sensor is indistinguishable from an image taken with the APS-C sensor.... the tech is the same, the pixel size is the same, the location of the pixels relative to the lens is the same.... everything is the same.

If you do not crop the FF image, the depth of field and the lens F stop do not change. To argue otherwise would be to suggest that cropping an image taken yesterday in Photoshop today will somehow go back in time and change the optical properties of the lens.

A crop sensor does not multiply focal lengths, it does not change F stops, these are optical properties that are intrinsic to the lens. What it does do is to only sample a subset of the light that passes through the lens, and that reduced sample area results in a reduced field of view, but it has no impact on the lens properties.


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 7, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> pj1974 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Wow, that's actually quite cool - taking a photo of the ISS with quite a focal length!

I've seen the ISS - but not ever got close enough to take a photo (maybe I should stand on a ladder next time)... Plus my 7D and 70-300mm L doesn't have quite sufficient reach 

Hmmmm... keeping in theme with this thread, I wonder if depth of field is an issue though as you might have focussed on the distant tip of the ISS, rather than the nearest tip - particularly if you couldn't AFMA on the 60D... ;D 

So- would you care to share your 22 pixels? 

Paul


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 7, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > pj1974 said:
> ...


Here it is blown up.... this may well be the worst picture ever shown on this forum....


----------



## Pi (Aug 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I probably shouldn't even try, because it seems that you won't be convinced, but why not one last go?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course, you magnify when you crop (by crop, I mean use a smaller sensor). Do you use a smaller screen do display your smaller sensor photos? DOF by definition is relative to a reference print size. That size is kept the same regardless of the sensor. Do I need to spell out everything?



> but sensor size doesn't affect magnification. Basic stuff, and if you don't understand how DoF works, then understanding how AF works is even more problematic.



Sensor size does change the enlargement. To print at the same reference size, you enlarge the crop image 1.6x more. If you ever worked with film of different size and optical printing, you must have experienced that firsthand. 



> Ah, yes. A random diagram. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Ever see little notations on diagrams, like 'not to scale'? So, say I select an AF point, like the one on the butterfly:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is fundamentally wrong. You are under the wrong impression that somehow, the image projected on the sensor is projected on the lens as well. You want more pictures? Here we go:

http://www.google.com/images?q=<phase detect af>



> By the way, here's the actual spread of the 7D's AF points and metering zones, in context of the image frame.



Completely irrelevant with one exception - the points away from the center cannot see well the needed rays (call it vignetting). 




> Each AF point is sampling a small dedicated region of object space (small, but slightly larger than that little box that represents the AF point).



But it is sampling rays focused there coming from very different parts of the lens. Which is the whole point. Focus on this (pin intended). It is the key for understanding how phase detection works. Here is how a single point on the (image) sensor is created:








> Why would I assume a Nikon crop was 1.6x? It isn't, it's 1.5x.



A simple exercise in abstract thinking, helps sometimes. 



> But ok, assume something incorrect, fine. 50mm f/2.8 on crop and 80mm f/2.8 on FF. The framing is identical. The depth of field of the FF shot is shallower, because the focal length has been changed. But the depth of _focus_ will be approximately the same in both cases, from the perspective of the AF sesnor.



Not true, actually: _In small-format cameras, the smaller circle of confusion limit yields a proportionately smaller depth of focus._ (wikipedia). But still irrelevant because the guaranteed accuracy is just what it needs to get a barely focused image, in my example. And that happens at different DOF!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> If you do not crop the FF image, the depth of field and the lens F stop do not change. To argue otherwise would be to suggest that cropping an image taken yesterday in Photoshop today will somehow go back in time and change the optical properties of the lens.



Well...............

Cropping won't change the properties of the lens, obviously. But magnifying that cropped image does. Say you viewed your 51 MP image full-screen on your 27" Thunderbolt Display, and on the second daisy-chained 27" Thunderbolt Display next to it, you viewed the 20 MP image cropped from the middle of the frame, but also full-screen. By doing so, you've changed the magnification of the image...and thus, you've also changed the DoF. Or, say you printed the FF image at 24x36", and the center crop at 15x22". If you hang them side-by-side on the wall, the DoF is the same. But if you set them both on easels and place one 5' away and the other 15' away, you've changed the viewing distance (the apparent magnification from your vantage point), and thus the DoF is different. 

No time machine required.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2013)

@ Pi - diagrams are intended to present a simplified view to aid in understanding. The idea is that you then extrapolate to gain a complete understanding. Are all of your camera lenses a single, biconvex element? Mine aren't. 

News flash - crop sensors don't directly result in deeper DoF any more than wide angle lenses have a deeper DoF. 

Regardless, I'll just stop. Agree to disagree and all that.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 7, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > pj1974 said:
> ...



I think I am going to resolve to try to be more like you two. I don't even know why I get suckered into these silly and endless debates where the same topic is rehashed over and over again.

I got to spend two hours tonight processing images from a Saturday shoot. I've probably got another 30 to 40 hours ahead of me in the coming evenings. Much work, but much more enjoyable than this debate/discussion. 

And, I'm doing something good: giving starving young actors much-needed headshots that they couldn't possibly afford otherwise. While learning every step of the way. 

Need to remind myself that Robert Frank, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Brassai, August Sander, Garry Winogrand, Lee Friedlander, Diane Arbus and hundreds of others aren't remembered for Image Quality, but for Quality Images.


----------



## jrista (Aug 7, 2013)

Pi said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I probably shouldn't even try, because it seems that you won't be convinced, but why not one last go?
> ...



Actually, DOF, *by definition*, is this:


```
DoF = (2 * N * c * f^2 * s^2) / (f^4 - (N^2 * c^2 * s^2))
```

The factor for CoC, circle of confusion, is _*c*_. It is effectively arbitrary. One does not necessarily know what the final output size of their photo will be in the end, or even if there may be multiple output sizes. If one wishes to be as concrete as possible, the CoC is physically limited by pixel size. To be "safe" when using a bayer type sensor, one should usually use a CoC that is at least twice the pixel pitch to account for the uneven sampling. Because of the even sparser nature of red and blue pixels relative to green, and due to the fact that an AA filter is usually used, it is better to use a CoC roughly three times the pixel pitch. That would be the only truly concrete definition of CoC for any given sensor.

Assuming one uses the *pixel pitch x3* for CoC, then that greatly simplifies the initial argument, and do away with the notion of a reference print size. One could assume that the pixel pitch for a FF sensor and an APS-C sensor are identical. If that is the case, then one could photograph the same subject with the same lens at the same distance with both sensors, crop the FF to the same image dimensions as the APS-C, and the depth of field will be 100% identical in every respect, regardless of what size the images are scaled to. Therefor, depth of field has nothing to do with crop factor or field of view. 

Nor, for that matter, does it really have anything to do with a _reference print size_. I would also offer the argument that even in print, as print size increases, so too does the most comfortable viewing distance. If you have the luxury of 80mp of MFD goodness, you might be able to print a highly detailed photo in an immense 40x60" size at 360ppi, drawing your viewers to within a few feet to examine all the detail. It you are incredibly meticulous, careful scaling might eek out enough detail do do something similar from something like the D800 or a hypothetical 40-50mp Canon FF. Generally speaking, as print size increases ppi drops, and so too does the viewers desire to stand back farther and farther to take the whole thing in. As visual acuity is also a function of distance, CoC could, for all intents and purposes, be a constant...and therefor a non-factor when one needs to determine their depth of field. You can pick whatever CoC your "comfortable" with, use that same value every time you compute DoF...at which point the formula above proves the point once and for all.

I guess therefor that one could then state that DoF is, by definition, purely a function of the lens and *relative to viewing distance of the final output*, _*at the time the photo is taken*_.


----------



## Pi (Aug 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> @ Pi - diagrams are intended to present a simplified view to aid in understanding. The idea is that you then extrapolate to gain a complete understanding. Are all of your camera lenses a single, biconvex element? Mine aren't.



Oh, that is the problem? Here is another image again, a random hit:







Wrong again? source: http://photographylife.com/how-phase-detection-autofocus-works



> News flash - crop sensors don't directly result in deeper DoF any more than wide angle lenses have a deeper DoF.



I did agree on that back in that thread, I see no reason to change the topic.


----------



## kaihp (Aug 7, 2013)

jrista said:


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



As far as I know, it's not that actual growing of the Silicon ingots to 300mm (or 450mm for that matter) that is the yield/cost issue. Getting very high quality and uniform ingots has always been extremely important to high-voltage devices (think kilo-Volts), because spikes in dopant concentration can result in avalanche-type catastrophic breakdowns (leading to the magic blue smoke leaving the devices in spectacular ways).

It's the yield of the manufacturing processes for everything you on the base wafer that matter (diffusion, implants, etching, photo lithography, metallization etc).

The problem for the jump to 450mm wafers is that you need the entire infrastructure of a fab to be in place: steppers, aligners, photo lithography, and so on. It's so expensive to develop, that basically the entire IC industry needs to coordinate around it; it's not enough that Intel or TSMC (or both) says "hey, we want to do 450mm now" and presto! they have it.


----------



## jrista (Aug 7, 2013)

kaihp said:


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



Agreed on the last part...it is an industry-wide resistance to migrating to larger wafers. New fabs are built at an increasing rate, however, as more IC devices are used in an ever increasing array of applications. I figure someone would have put the money into building a new fab capable of 450mm by now...

I did read an article some time back, maybe seven or eight years ago now, that indicated that growing the crystal did not always produce perfect, uniform growth, and that further refinements of the process could improve quality and render an increase in usable 300mm wafers and fewer defects per wafer. I don't remember if it was online or in a magazine.


----------



## Pi (Aug 7, 2013)

jrista said:


> Actually, DOF, *by definition*, is this:
> 
> 
> ```
> ...



I suggest you read this first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

Do not miss this paragraph:

_If the original image is enlarged to make the final image, the circle of confusion in the original image must be smaller than that in the final image by the ratio of enlargement. Cropping an image and enlarging to the same size final image as an uncropped image taken under the same conditions is equivalent to using a smaller format under the same conditions, so the cropped image has less DOF. (Stroebel 1976, 134, 136–37)._

or this:

_ Note that the acceptable circle of confusion values for these formats are different because of the relative amount of magnification each format will need in order to be projected on a full-sized movie screen._


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> By doing so, you've changed the magnification of the image...and thus, you've also changed the DoF.



I am a bit confused. Physically, what exactly is happening to the image when it is magnified digitally? As I understand, DoF is the range within which subjects will be in focus given certain distance, focal length and aperture. This, therefore, makes sense to me:



jrista said:


> I guess therefor that one could then state that DoF is, by definition, purely a function of the lens and *relative to viewing distance of the final output*, _*at the time the photo is taken*_.



However, if the magnification alters the DoF (and I am guessing increases it, yes?) then do things that were until now unfocused in the image become sharply focused. Wait, that sounds improbable, no? What is exactly happening here? ???


----------



## jrista (Aug 7, 2013)

Pi said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, DOF, *by definition*, is this:
> ...



"to be projected on a full-sized movie screen"

That would be an enlargement by a factor of 20x, 30x, maybe more? Of course CoC is going to matter with such an enlargement, despite the fact that you sit back by 30 to 50 feet. I don't think most photographers enlarge much more than 2x, and the vast majority of photographers reduce their images (usually quite considerably) for publication online. 

As for the quote from Strobel, in the 1970s, film was the primary means by which photography was done. CoC was usually considerably larger back then than it is today with pixels less than 10 microns in size. Particularly in the case of large format cameras. With such large CoC sizes, it was a more important factor, even for something as relatively simple as a 2-3x enlargement. More recent films manufactured with more modern technology have produced silver halide film grains on the order of a few microns in size (one film in particular that was used by Zeiss to test high grade fast optics apparently was capable of resolving 400lp/mm, more than any sensor that I know of as of yet), but generally speaking CoC sizes today are quite small when compared to the film of the 1970s (a CoC that is 2x the pixel pitch of the average pixel size today, which is around 5µm, would be 0.01mm...a CoC for medium and large format film from the '70s would be on the order of 0.2-0.3mm...a difference by a factor of over 20x). It takes a pretty significant enlargement (say projecting on a large movie screen) to make CoC a meaningful aspect of DoF for the majority of photographers today. 

I would point out that I speak from experience. I print at 24x36, 30x40, and 32x48 on a fairly frequent basis. For those particular prints hanging on my walls, they are usually viewed standing back ten feet or so...no one has ever complained about my depth of field being too thin or too large, or that the inaccuracies in my 7D AF resulted in a horribly misfocused subject totally unworthy of such a large honor.  

Anyway...points have been made. The debate, once again, is going nowhere. I'm going to bed. It's up to you and Neuro now.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> then do things that were until now unfocused in the image become sharply focused. Wait, that sounds improbable, no? What is exactly happening here? ???



That's exactly what happens. See this example of the converse from privatebydesign.



jrista said:


> Anyway...points have been made. The debate, once again, is going nowhere. I'm going to bed. It's up to you and Neuro now.



I'm still up, with more work to do. But I'm done with this debate. Actually, looking at the thread I dug up above, it seems the circles of confusion were ensnaring people there, too. Round and round it went/goes...but without me.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > then do things that were until now unfocused in the image become sharply focused. Wait, that sounds improbable, no? What is exactly happening here? ???
> ...



Ok, so basically the change in resolution alters the perception of what is now "in focus", since being in focus is subjective. Got it.


----------



## thgmuffin (Aug 7, 2013)

I can't wait for the 7D Mark II rant! :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRI8lk2InqI&feature=c4-overview&list=UUw1aOoORdYoLNpyh3tAkJRw


----------



## Etienne (Aug 7, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > To summarize:
> ...



This thread was all over the map long before my comment, which was to poke fun at all of that stuff.
I am not anti-crop. Although I the 5DIII is my favorite, I have and use a 60D, and an EOS-M, and I am keenly interested in the upcoming 70D and possible EOS-M successor.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 7, 2013)

.
Nothing ignites passionate argument like Religion, Politics, and ... DOF on APS-C


----------



## jrista (Aug 7, 2013)

Etienne said:


> .
> Nothing ignites passionate argument like Religion, Politics, and ... DOF on APS-C



And DRoning about DRivel.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 7, 2013)

Etienne said:


> .
> Nothing ignites passionate argument like Religion, Politics, and ... DOF on APS-C



Yep. It's the inevitable death-spiral of a 7D rumor thread.

- A


----------



## Pi (Aug 7, 2013)

jrista said:


> "to be projected on a full-sized movie screen"
> 
> That would be an enlargement by a factor of 20x, 30x, maybe more? Of course CoC is going to matter with such an enlargement, despite the fact that you sit back by 30 to 50 feet. I don't think most photographers enlarge much more than 2x, and the vast majority of photographers reduce their images (usually quite considerably) for publication online.



They post images smaller than 24x36mm? Don't say!

Look, it is really simple. Take any display size you like. Movie screen or a 4"x6" print. Whatever, fix it. Then take any CoC that makes you happy on that display. It can be as big as your head on the movie screen, or as small as a head of pin for a 4x6 print. Fix that, as well. Now, start with a 24x36mm image, and from a 15x22mm one. What blur radius (CoC) on each image, when enlarged, would produce the desired CoC on your favorite display size? You can compute it but without any computation, you can say that the CoC on the 15x22mm image has to be 1.6 times smaller. As simple as that. I do not really know what else to say.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 7, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



+1


----------



## jrista (Aug 7, 2013)

Pi said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > "to be projected on a full-sized movie screen"
> ...



That would only be the case if the CoC was larger than what I chose as acceptable. With such small pixel pitches of sensors these days, the CoC from ANY sensor is appreciably smaller than what my CoC needs to be that it no longer matters. When you need a CoC that is at least 50x larger than what you get from the 1D X, it doesn't matter if you photograph something with the 1D X, 5D III, 7D, 7D II, or anything else...its already far smaller than you need it to be for the vast majority of circumstances. Most of my work goes online. Even scaled to "HD" image dimensions, the necessary CoC is 20-30x larger than any sensor today is already producing. Even if I enlarge my photos by 3x, maybe even 4x, to print at 32x48 or 40x60...I'm not going to be standing within a foot to view them. I'll be standing back ten, fifteen, twenty feet, so the increase in distance is effectively the same as NOT enlarging the photos in the first place. My required CoC then is still large enough that 4µm, 5µm, even 7µm pixels are going to resolve more detail than I really truly need unless I am cropping out the middle 10%.

So yes, there is a difference between FF and APS-C DOF. Its just that the difference doesn't matter in the real world in the vast majority of reach-limited cases...and even when it does...no one actually notices. The DOF benefit of FF shows up when you have the ability to frame identically, but in those cases it is either the focal length or the subject distance that changes by the crop factor, and that, not the physical size of the sensor itself, that changes the depth of field.


----------



## Pi (Aug 7, 2013)

jrista said:


> That would only be the case if the CoC was larger than what I chose as acceptable. With such small pixel pitches of sensors these days, the CoC from ANY sensor is appreciably smaller than what my CoC needs to be that it no longer matters. When you need a CoC that is at least 50x larger than what you get from the 1D X, it doesn't matter if you photograph something with the 1D X, 5D III, 7D, 7D II, or anything else...its already far smaller than you need it to be for the vast majority of circumstances. Most of my work goes online. Even scaled to "HD" image dimensions, the necessary CoC is 20-30x larger than any sensor today is already producing. Even if I enlarge my photos by 3x, maybe even 4x, to print at 32x48 or 40x60...I'm not going to be standing within a foot to view them. I'll be standing back ten, fifteen, twenty feet, so the increase in distance is effectively the same as NOT enlarging the photos in the first place. My required CoC then is still large enough that 4µm, 5µm, even 7µm pixels are going to resolve more detail than I really truly need unless I am cropping out the middle 10%.



CoC (in that context) has nothing to do with pixels (unless you are extremely picky and good sighted). It is your tolerance for what you accept. My point was that the 1.6x factor stays, regardless of what your tolerance is. It goes back to what you said earlier, and you are changing the topic now.



> So yes, there is a difference between FF and APS-C DOF. Its just that the difference doesn't matter in the real world in the vast majority of reach-limited cases...and even when it does...no one actually notices. The DOF benefit of FF shows up when you have the ability to frame identically, but in those cases it is either the focal length or the subject distance that changes by the crop factor, and that, not the physical size of the sensor itself, that changes the depth of field.



I said repeatedly that the difference is for those who care, and most people would be happy with either format. But you are downplaying the benefits again and distorting them. What prevents you from framing identically, how does the sensor size changes the distance to the subject, etc. Stop lying to yourself. A larger sensor alone does not automatically mean the ability to get shallower DOF but the FF system built by Canon does have much greater potential for that than the Canon crop system. 

I will stop here because I do not see anything coherent in your posts. You are jumping from topic from topic, each time forgetting what you wrote before and what I replied to.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 8, 2013)

New specs posted from Northlight:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16307.0

APS-C / FF masterdebaters, you have a new thread to spread your thoughts. Rejoice.

- A


----------



## jrista (Aug 8, 2013)

Pi said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > That would only be the case if the CoC was larger than what I chose as acceptable. With such small pixel pitches of sensors these days, the CoC from ANY sensor is appreciably smaller than what my CoC needs to be that it no longer matters. When you need a CoC that is at least 50x larger than what you get from the 1D X, it doesn't matter if you photograph something with the 1D X, 5D III, 7D, 7D II, or anything else...its already far smaller than you need it to be for the vast majority of circumstances. Most of my work goes online. Even scaled to "HD" image dimensions, the necessary CoC is 20-30x larger than any sensor today is already producing. Even if I enlarge my photos by 3x, maybe even 4x, to print at 32x48 or 40x60...I'm not going to be standing within a foot to view them. I'll be standing back ten, fifteen, twenty feet, so the increase in distance is effectively the same as NOT enlarging the photos in the first place. My required CoC then is still large enough that 4µm, 5µm, even 7µm pixels are going to resolve more detail than I really truly need unless I am cropping out the middle 10%.
> ...



I'm not downplaying any benefits. You claim that the simple act of *cropping* (which is all a crop sensor does) changes the depth of field. If you hypothetically had both FF and APS-C sensors with the same pixel pitch, and you cropped the FF image in post to match the APS-C image, would that change the DOF? Of course not. The two images would be identical. 

Pixel pitch puts a lower limit on CoC, which is why I bring it up (and I mentioned this in a previous response, so apparently neither of us can either read nor remember what we've read). A 5µm pixel would limit your CoC to 0.01mm. If you only need a 0.5mm CoC (and I'm being EXTREMELY generous here) for a 2x reduction for publication on the web, then it doesn't matter if you are using a 6 micron pixel, a 5 micron pixel, or a 4 micron pixel. All three would produce results similar enough that no human being could tell any difference for your reduction. You could even enlarge by a factor of two, and still have more than enough "CoC headroom" that the differences in pixel pitch wouldn't matter enough to produce an appreciable difference in DoF that anyone would notice it. A cropped FF with 6µm pixels is going to be perceived the same as an APS-C with 4µm pixels.

Mathematically, purely theoretically, you are correct. A 0.12mm CoC (6µm pixel) will produce a different DoF than a 0.08mm CoC (4µm pixel). I'm not solely trying to debate the simple mathematics of the issue. I am trying to point out that the difference between 0.12mm and 0.08mm CoC has no real-world relevance such that, _assuming a focal length limited scenario where an FF and APS-C are used to photograph the same subject, with the same lens, at the same distance, cropping the FF image to match the APS-C image,_ DOF would be *perceptually* different. I'm arguing the point that DOF has nothing to do with *crop factor*, and everything to do with the *lens *and *subject distance*. That means you can get closer with the FF, or swap to a longer lens, to *frame it the same* as the APS-C...and the change in focal length or subject distance is what actually changes the depth of field (_and does so in such a way as to give FF a significant DOF advantage over APS-C, yes!_) I am not denying anything, and my argument has been coherent and consistent...I am denying the notion that crop factor in and of itself has any impact on DoF.


----------



## Krob78 (Aug 9, 2013)

Etienne said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...


Sigh... Indeed..


----------



## kfreels (Sep 11, 2013)

Anyways....

I'm hoping the 7DII has a few specific things:

1.) Cleaner RAW images at ISO 1600 and 3200 
2.) 10-12 frames per second
3.) 1DX AF system with Eye Control AF
4.) WiFi
5.) Integrated grip (like the 1DX)
6.) 30+ image RAW buffer
7.) Radio e-ttl control
8.) RJ-45 ethernet port.
9.) Locking mode dial
10.) Support for multiple folders on the card to save and view files on.

That's my wish list. I doubt I'll get it all, but there is certainly plenty of room for improvement above the 7D and 70D specs.


----------

