# Canon EOS 7D Mark II in Q2? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 31, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15703"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15703">Tweet</a></div>
<p>More talk that prototype versions of the EOS 7D replacement will be sent to the Olympic games in Sochi this month. For the moment, a lot of the functionality and features are still “up for grabs” on the new model. The current timeline for the camera is an announcement in Q2 of this year with a release in Q3. Perhaps the camera will be tested further in Brazil for the World Cup?</p>
<p>We expect to hear more during the Olympics, though any specs mentioned may still be omitted from the final consumer product.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_7dmk2.html" target="_blank">NL</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 31, 2014)

If they want to test it during the World Cup, then announcement in Q3 or Q4 and release in December sounds more likely.


----------



## expatinasia (Jan 31, 2014)

It is a brave photographer that would test a brand new body at such an important event. 

A lens is different. I would not mind testing a new lens on my favourite top of the range body.

But if I was at either of those two events mentioned (Sochi and Brazil), I would want the 1D X and only the 1D X (in multiples).


----------



## tron (Jan 31, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> It is a brave photographer that would test a brand new body at such an important event.
> 
> A lens is different. I would not mind testing a new lens on my favourite top of the range body.
> 
> But if I was at either of those two events mentioned (Sochi and Brazil), I would want the 1D X and only the 1D X (in multiples).


+1 Exactly. This is another useless CR1 7D2 thread to add to the already existing ones...


----------



## mkabi (Jan 31, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> It is a brave photographer that would test a brand new body at such an important event.
> 
> A lens is different. I would not mind testing a new lens on my favourite top of the range body.
> 
> But if I was at either of those two events mentioned (Sochi and Brazil), I would want the 1D X and only the 1D X (in multiples).



Not if you have an assistant.
I suspect it would go back and forth, can compare with the 1DX while they are there.

Plus, I really suspect that if there are prototypes out there and Canon is handing them out to professionals, they are well compensated for it. I mean think about it, yes... these are important events and you don't want to miss a second.... yes... a prototype may fail and then you're [email protected]#ed if that happens, but if that is the case then Canon is responsible and if the prototype is any good, Canon can say "See that was taken with this camera!"


----------



## dolina (Jan 31, 2014)

What I want to know is what memory cards will it be using. Will Canon still stick to UDMA 7 CF (167MB/s) or switch to UHS-II SDXC (312MB/s) or CFast 2.0 (600MB/s).

It has been more than 53 months since the 7D was announced to the public.


----------



## ScottyP (Jan 31, 2014)

I kind of think that handing the cameras out for testing at a high profile world-famous sporting event is more about the publicity and creating an image for the product than about testing the camera. If you wanted to keep the camera secret, you Could do that almost anywhere; you wouldn't have people at such high profile events waving them around. I think they want them to be seen and they want rumors like this about them being there, and a rumor about them being at something big and important like the Olympics is much "cooler" than rumors about them being tested at some high school track practice.


----------



## dufflover (Jan 31, 2014)

tron said:


> This is another useless CR1 7D2 thread to add to the already existing ones...



I wasn't thinking quite that harshly but I was thinking along the same lines. Nothing new people, just another "look 7D2" moment lol


----------



## xps (Jan 31, 2014)

Some days ago, I saw a lot of photographers with a lot more equipment carrying around in Kitzbühel in Austria. We´ve been there (not to see Arnie ) but to support our local new slalom-star from Garmisch. (And he won ;D )
I saw - like last year - more than one photographer-group using an big SLR-body without a naming on it and an built-in vertical grip. This might be an Nikon body, because of the round OVF... 2 Laptops, many boxes,... one person shooting and three looking on their laptops...

I my opinion they tested something. The lenses or the body......

But in my opinion too, it looks like seome people want to keep this topic boiling....


----------



## dolina (Jan 31, 2014)

dufflover said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > This is another useless CR1 7D2 thread to add to the already existing ones...
> ...


Not everyone visit CR every day folks.  A reminder is always welcome. It got me to check on the shutter life of my 4 bodies.


----------



## fox40phil (Jan 31, 2014)

why they need those big events to test prototypes?!... each local sport or some better ranked sport-league will be able for testing new hardware stuff..?! :-\

Q3/Q4... come on..


----------



## mkabi (Jan 31, 2014)

dolina said:


> What I want to know is what memory cards will it be using. Will Canon still stick to UDMA 7 CF (167MB/s) or switch to UHS-II SDXC (312MB/s) or CFast 2.0 (600MB/s).
> 
> It has been more than 53 months since the 7D was announced to the public.



Is CFast card slots reverse compatible with CF cards?

EDIT TO SAY: I found the answer to my own question here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9541.0

So it won't work with existing CF cards, might as well throw all of my existing CF cards in the garbage if they change it.


----------



## madmailman (Jan 31, 2014)

Why would a pro want to use a test camera at something like the Olympics and/or the world cup. Surely they wouldn't be allowed to use/sell the images made with the test units due to the NDA's they would have signed. Canon or Nikon would have to compensate the photographers enough to cover the potential lost revenues from not being able to sell any pictures. In which case the photogs would just use the test units as teathered cameras and shoot as normal with their own kit so who really cares how reliable the test unit is. No?


----------



## Zv (Jan 31, 2014)

dufflover said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > This is another useless CR1 7D2 thread to add to the already existing ones...
> ...



I came to this thread to post the exact same thing. Only to find others that are already thinking the same thing. Another 7D2 CR1. When is this charade going to end? One day I will wake up, read CR and be genuinely shocked that a 7D2 has been announced! That day will be legendary! 

We hope and wait ....


----------



## dolina (Jan 31, 2014)

mkabi said:


> So it won't work with existing CF cards, might as well throw all of my existing CF cards in the garbage if they change it.


I'm selling my collection of thirteen CF cards of 2GB or larger. Sold three and and pre-sold five. The rest I need to look for as they are scattered in the house.

Original plan was to replace them with four 64GB or 128GB cards. I hate keeping track of so many loose items that I do not end up using. Why four CF cards? That makes it one body to one card.

Reading up on Sandisk, Lexar & Canon's involvement with CFast (and further readings on XQD) got me thinking that 2014 could be the year that we will see EOS bodies with SATA-based CFast card slots.

Too many eggs in a single basket? That has been the argument since over a decade ago. Never had a memory card go bad on me but misplacing them is always a problem.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 31, 2014)

fox40phil said:


> why they need those big events to test prototypes?!... each local sport or some better ranked sport-league will be able for testing new hardware stuff..?! :-\



Maybe because the best/most trusted photographers would be there, and they can compare performance among several top-end photographers using current vs. new equipment under similar conditions.



madmailman said:


> Surely they wouldn't be allowed to use/sell the images made with the test units due to the NDA's they would have signed. Canon or Nikon would have to compensate the photographers enough to cover the potential lost revenues from not being able to sell any pictures.



Presumably, Canon would offer them the service of converting their prototype images to make them look like they came from a current model. And some direct compensation, of course.

This is all speculation, of course.


----------



## dolina (Jan 31, 2014)

Canon lends out their prototypes to photoagencies and photogs they closely work with. Best time to organize such a test under real world conditions are at international sporting events like the World Cup and Olympics.

Canon & Nikon have both been doing this for decades to good effect.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 31, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> It is a brave photographer that would test a brand new body at such an important event.


Not really..... It is a multi day event and they are being compensated anyway....

What is the worst case scenario? The camera fails in a way that the photographer does not notice until later.... In this case, you shoot the whole morning and get unusable images..... in the afternoon you use another body. You are still getting paid... It doesn't matter if the pictures were great or if they were crap, you are under contract to take pictures and give them to the client..... and the client would rather you found the problems than someone else finding them AFTER the camera has gone into production. A crap picture that was messed up by the camera is more valuable to the client than that "perfect sporting moment"......


----------



## dolina (Jan 31, 2014)

To be honest I was expecting the announcement for the 7D and 1DX replacement to have been made last October 2013.


----------



## NancyP (Jan 31, 2014)

Photographers could use the early time trials to test equipment, or test equipment on "uninteresting" (unlikely to place) athletes. This is a great opportunity to get the top sports photographers in the world to test out a camera designed for action. Also, some of the courses are very long, and the contestants look like ants from a distance. The photographers could be using the new body on the longest lenses. The photographers undoubtedly get paid well for their opinions and suggestions about the prototype camera.


----------



## PhilippP74 (Jan 31, 2014)

The 7D is currently positioned in the "prosumer" / enthusiast segment. Could this "testrun" at the Olympics hint at a more "pro" positioning and feature set of the Mark II (the pro APS-C body) or would you just dismiss this as marketing?


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jan 31, 2014)

dolina said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > So it won't work with existing CF cards, might as well throw all of my existing CF cards in the garbage if they change it.
> ...



FINALLY someone else says it! Yeah, it can happen. But are they eBay cheapies? Do you sit on them regularly? Are the cards 10 years old?


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jan 31, 2014)

I think this is just marketing. This is an APS-C camera and what photographer would chance an important shot being missed by a prototype?


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 31, 2014)

And here I was hoping it would come out before summer. Q3 release may as well be next year, at which point I'm really wondering about the 5D4.
Maybe I should plan on upgrading lenses before bodies.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 31, 2014)

dolina said:


> What I want to know is what memory cards will it be using. Will Canon still stick to UDMA 7 CF (167MB/s) or switch to UHS-II SDXC (312MB/s) or CFast 2.0 (600MB/s).



If they're giving it out to pros, it'll be CFast. Or XQD. I haven't really looked at which one is superior, if either one really is. XQD is based on PCI-Express, while CFast is based on SATA. Either way, while they both support extremely high max speeds, those speeds will only be reached by very few cards, if ever. Until we get new technologies past flash memory. It's getting harder and harder to boost flash speeds, especially in such a fairly small & confined space. With current top end cards just starting to hit UDMA7 max speeds, XQD/CFast support is definitely needed on the next generation of pro cameras.


----------



## dolina (Jan 31, 2014)

Drizzt321 said:


> If they're giving it out to pros, it'll be CFast. Or XQD. I haven't really looked at which one is superior, if either one really is. XQD is based on PCI-Express, while CFast is based on SATA. Either way, while they both support extremely high max speeds, those speeds will only be reached by very few cards, if ever. Until we get new technologies past flash memory. It's getting harder and harder to boost flash speeds, especially in such a fairly small & confined space. With current top end cards just starting to hit UDMA7 max speeds, XQD/CFast support is definitely needed on the next generation of pro cameras.



No one has max'd out CFast or XQD yet but they've surpassed UDMA 7 CF's 167MB/s limit.


----------



## jiphoto (Jan 31, 2014)

Drizzt321 said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > What I want to know is what memory cards will it be using. Will Canon still stick to UDMA 7 CF (167MB/s) or switch to UHS-II SDXC (312MB/s) or CFast 2.0 (600MB/s).
> ...


Don't forget that CFast is Canon's preferred card format that they've been publicly backing - they'd be crazy to suddenly use XQD, especially since Nikon only has one camera that supports XQD so far, but Alexa is already supporting CFast via standard upgrades for most of their cinema cameras.


----------



## dolina (Jan 31, 2014)

Alternatively Canon could go SDXC like what was done to the 60D and 6D. SDXC Version 4.0 allows for 312 MB/s using additional row of pins..

What I should be my worry now is to make sure the 5 CF cards are sold and I find the other 5 cards that I need to sell.

I really just want to have one memory card per body to keep things tidy.



jiphoto said:


> Don't forget that CFast is Canon's preferred card format that they've been publicly backing - they'd be crazy to suddenly use XQD, especially since Nikon only has one camera that supports XQD so far, but Alexa is already supporting CFast via standard upgrades for most of their cinema cameras.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 31, 2014)

dolina said:


> Alternatively Canon could go SDXC like what was done to the 60D and 6D. SDXC Version 4.0 allows for 312 MB/s using additional row of pins..
> 
> What I should be my worry now is to make sure the 5 CF cards are sold and I find the other 5 cards that I need to sell.
> 
> ...



Ah, didn't know Canon had stated CFast is their preferred.

And no, they won't go any SD format for top end cameras. SD has too many practical limitations for real pro use starting with the tiny size not able to fit in nearly as many NAND packages/dies which means real-world write limits will be a lot lower than CF/CFast/XQD. Plus, it's pretty flimsy compared to CF/CFast/XQD package. Besides the CF pins that is, which is improved/fixed in CFast and XQD.


----------



## dolina (Jan 31, 2014)

From what I've read Sandisk, Arri, Phase One, Lexar and Sandisk support CFast 2.0.

XQD was developed by Sandisk but not manufactured by them. Lexar and Sony are the sole XQD memory card makers and Nikon D4 the sole camera supporting it. Some months ago BH Photo claimed that Lexar discontinued XQD but Lexar rebukes this. 

Only XQD you can buy off BH is from Sony.

CFast is not available on BH as of my writing.

My thoughts are the next 1D, 5D and possibly the 7D will support CFast if they start allowing uncompressed video straight to internal memory card or 4K resolution recording.

CFast would also be required if Canon were to adopt a TLR-like technology to attain higher continuous RAW fps. As I see it memory card read/writes are the main culprit holding back cameras.

XQD and CFast are based on PCIe and SATA technologies. As such are restricted by the same limitations. Like SATA rev 3.0 peaks at 600MB/s and PCIe rev 3.0 peaks at 800MB/s.

Next step up has both CFast and XQD peaking at 1.6GB/s. I think they will be updated once 8K resolution recordings become popular. In say 5, 10 or 15 years from now?


----------



## LoneRider (Jan 31, 2014)

Amusing thread.

Fir of all, if it is a Q3 release, my vacation at the end of Q2 beginning of Q3 will have to live with the 7D and 50D I currently own, and that sucks.

Secondly, if it is a Q2 announce and Q3 release, prototypes are not a word used at this point. There might be some firmware changes between cameras. But these would be Beta or pre-production cameras.

As far as problems writing to the CF cards, those issues should be long found in regression tests and such. I would hope. I would expect bugs will be a minimum, there will be some. But I would also expect any photographer to have a few 1000, or more exposures on any new camera before they head to the sporting event, no?

Like seriously, who would grab a new camera and the start taking event pictures, unless you absolutely had to??

just say'n. 

I have been in production development for a while now, and unless Canon is an absolute broken mess of a large corporation, I would expect there is significantly less risk with than some of y'all think. I have to expect these cameras have already been vibe-table tested with accelerated aging tests, temp testing for both environmental use, but again accelerated aging tests, regressions tests, life tests and so on.


----------



## LoneRider (Jan 31, 2014)

Wow, just reread my last post, sorry for the bad English. I reviewed it a bit too quickly.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 31, 2014)

dolina said:


> From what I've read Sandisk, Arri, Phase One, Lexar and Sandisk support CFast 2.0.
> 
> XQD was developed by Sandisk but not manufactured by them. Lexar and Sony are the sole XQD memory card makers and Nikon D4 the sole camera supporting it. Some months ago BH Photo claimed that Lexar discontinued XQD but Lexar rebukes this.
> 
> ...



I didn't think Canon manufactured memory cards. Maybe rebranded, sure. 

Anyway, I thought part of the limitation on FPS was the shutter & mirror. I'd think that on a 1DX they have pretty big memory buffers, yet they can't speed up the shutter. If they actually can get a real global shutter on the next line of sensors, they could really pump things up as they would no longer be reliant on physical mechanisms.


----------



## dolina (Jan 31, 2014)

LoneRider said:


> Amusing thread.
> 
> Fir of all, if it is a Q3 release, my vacation at the end of Q2 beginning of Q3 will have to live with the 7D and 50D I currently own, and that sucks.
> 
> ...


Often times it is a job requirement imposed by the photoagency or directly with Canon itself.

Any who SATA Express and PCIe 4 (both 1.6GB/s) will come out by 2017 with Intel Skylake.

2017 4K resolution 32-inch iMacs anyone?


----------



## dolina (Jan 31, 2014)

Canon cameras not memory cards.  Unless of course ARRI and Phase Ones also make their own memory cards.

The limitation is indeed the mirror hence Canon going TLR-like.

Or as you mentioned a global shutter would work as well.

1DX benefits from the buffer and UDMA 7 CF cards.



Drizzt321 said:


> I didn't think Canon manufactured memory cards. Maybe rebranded, sure.
> 
> Anyway, I thought part of the limitation on FPS was the shutter & mirror. I'd think that on a 1DX they have pretty big memory buffers, yet they can't speed up the shutter. If they actually can get a real global shutter on the next line of sensors, they could really pump things up as they would no longer be reliant on physical mechanisms.


----------



## dolina (Jan 31, 2014)

Rereading it appears that SATA Express uses PCI Express to achieve 16Gbit/s throughput.

Perhaps this is why everyone but Sony & Nikon abandoned XQD.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 31, 2014)

dolina said:


> Rereading it appears that SATA Express uses PCI Express to achieve 16Gbit/s throughput.
> 
> Perhaps this is why everyone but Sony & Nikon abandoned XQD.



Sony probably because they just refuse to give up on any format they can try and lock people into. See mini-disc and memory stick.

Nikon, I don't see how they have 'abandoned' it yet. They came out with a camera that used it, and it's still a production model. If their next pro (D900, D5, whatever) camera comes out that has CFast, then I'll say they've abandoned it. In that case, they'll have abandoned it and backed the wrong horse for a little bit.


----------



## garyknrd (Feb 1, 2014)

I would love to see it materialize. But, this is getting kinda silly. 
Seems like once every two or three weeks this get's thrown out... LOL


----------



## hampai (Feb 1, 2014)

Its time to get my Fony soon if Canon don't wake up.


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 1, 2014)

Number one feature I want for the 7D II? 

A friggin' release date!


----------



## mkabi (Feb 1, 2014)

hampai said:


> Its time to get my Fony soon if Canon don't wake up.



Wrong thread. Look at the "Wake up Canon" thread or the "Switching Systems" thread or the multitude of threads of the Sony thread. No point in comparing a Sony A7/A7R to the 7DII, let me save you some time and tell you that the IQ of the 7DII will not be better than the Sony A7/A7R. Because the 7DII will be a an APS-C and the Sony will be a full frame.



Sabaki said:


> Number one feature I want for the 7D II?
> 
> A friggin' release date!



With your gear list, can I recommend a 6D, a 5DIII, or even a 1DX(if you can afford it)? Reality is... No matter if they cram a few more MP into the 7D or not... Its still going to be underwhelming compared to a full frame camera.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 1, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Number one feature I want for the 7D II?
> 
> A friggin' release date!


+1


----------



## jrista (Feb 1, 2014)

madmailman said:


> Why would a pro want to use a test camera at something like the Olympics and/or the world cup. Surely they wouldn't be allowed to use/sell the images made with the test units due to the NDA's they would have signed. Canon or Nikon would have to compensate the photographers enough to cover the potential lost revenues from not being able to sell any pictures. In which case the photogs would just use the test units as teathered cameras and shoot as normal with their own kit so who really cares how reliable the test unit is. No?



Test models and prototypes are different things. A prototype is a tested model that needs to be put in the hands of a user to see how they like it. You don't "test" prototypes, you "test drive" prototypes! This is Canon getting the 7D II out into the field for some cuddle time with potential 7D II customers so they can get some real-world feedback about handling, ergonomics, performance, functionality...and any quirks that might pop up along the way. 

We aren't talking about a beta test here where bugs are likely...were talking about a small set of potential models nearly ready for RTM. These bodies should have already been pretty thoroughly tested, so the chances of horrid failure out in the field should be pretty low. Its like a prototype of a new concept car...concept car companies don't hand out prototypes for people to go driving around on your average community streets if there is anything but a remote potential the car will fail, and as close to zero potential as possible that the car would fail in any hazardous manner.

I'd happily take a *prototype *7D II to the Olympics...hell, I'd be ecstatic. I wouldn't want to take a preliminary test model 7D II to...well, anything.


----------



## expatinasia (Feb 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> I'd happily take a *prototype *7D II to the Olympics...hell, I'd be ecstatic. I wouldn't want to take a preliminary test model 7D II to...well, anything.



Only if it were to be used for fun shots, or unimportant games that you aren't being paid to cover. Why? Simply because as a sport's journalist covering such important event you would want the best body for the job, and that would be a 1D X.

I am looking forward to the 7D Mark II but it will not be as good as the 1D X, it will give more reach, be useful in that regard but I would very much doubt it would be better than the 1D X.


----------



## dgatwood (Feb 2, 2014)

dolina said:


> XQD and CFast are based on PCIe and SATA technologies. As such are restricted by the same limitations. Like SATA rev 3.0 peaks at 600MB/s and PCIe rev 3.0 peaks at 800MB/s.



You're being a little imprecise there. PCIe peaks at 985 MB/s of bidirectional bandwidth *per lane*. However, PCIe allows you to aggregate (bond) up to 32 lanes. An x32 PCIe bus, therefore, maxes out at almost 16 gigabytes per second in each direction. Mind you, XQD currently provides only a single lane, but you could trivially turn it into a much faster standard just by throwing enough additional pins at the problem (four extra pins per lane, ignoring any ground pins that might be required to prevent crosstalk).

For a data card standard, unless I'm missing something, you could easily do away with all but three of the first 22 pins in the PCIe standard (the two SMBUS pins and one 3.3V rail). The next 14 would probably be required, though perhaps not all of the grounds. So you're at about 17 pins for the first lane, and possibly fewer. If you then add more lanes using the same ground-opposite-data scheme that PCIe connectors use, add 8 pins per additional lane.

So if you used the same 50-pin connector that CF cards use, for example, you ought to be able to do 4x PCIe with nine pins to spare (assuming that you either require everything to do 4x or require the mode to be negotiated over the SMBUS instead of using detect pins). If you use those nine pins as detect pins in some particularly smart way, you might even be able to achieve backwards compatibility with CF in both directions....


----------



## dolina (Feb 2, 2014)

I account for overhead. SATA 6Gbps would be 768 MB/s but no SSD I know off can consistently hit 600MB/s whether read or write.

Serial ATA International Organization interpreted 16Gb/s of SATA Express to 2GB/s. I would more likely believe 1.6GB/s to cover overhead.

I am also speculating where future unannounced versions could lead to.



dgatwood said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > XQD and CFast are based on PCIe and SATA technologies. As such are restricted by the same limitations. Like SATA rev 3.0 peaks at 600MB/s and PCIe rev 3.0 peaks at 800MB/s.
> ...


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 2, 2014)

The 7D Mk II is already here and it's called the 70D (Canon has been repositioning its camera line-up in recent years). And _if_ they do release a new high end aps-c body well, then I'm happy I sold my 7D in time.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 2, 2014)

dolina said:


> I account for overhead. SATA 6Gbps would be 768 MB/s but no SSD I know off can consistently hit 600MB/s whether read or write.
> 
> Serial ATA International Organization interpreted 16Gb/s of SATA Express to 2GB/s. I would more likely believe 1.6GB/s to cover overhead.
> 
> ...



Is the transfer synchronous (8 bits per byte and no framing) where 16Mbits/sec = 2Mbytes per second?
Is it asynchronous (8bits per byte plus 2 framing) where 16Mbits/sec = 1.6Mbytes per second?
Is it asynchronous block (256bytes of 8 bits per byte plus 8 bits framing) where 16Mbits/sec = 1.9998Mbytes per second?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 2, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> It is a brave photographer that would test a brand new body at such an important event.
> 
> A lens is different. I would not mind testing a new lens on my favourite top of the range body.
> 
> But if I was at either of those two events mentioned (Sochi and Brazil), I would want the 1D X and only the 1D X (in multiples).



Not really, I'm guessing they would be using it initially alongside other cameras (1Dx) and will start using it during the early heats to get accustomed to it. I seriously anyone would be using one for the finals or portfolio work.


----------



## dolina (Feb 2, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Is the transfer synchronous (8 bits per byte and no framing) where 16Mbits/sec = 2Mbytes per second?
> Is it asynchronous (8bits per byte plus 2 framing) where 16Mbits/sec = 1.6Mbytes per second?
> Is it asynchronous block (256bytes of 8 bits per byte plus 8 bits framing) where 16Mbits/sec = 1.9998Mbytes per second?


Based on industry practices it appears that they are quoting raw throughput.

See explanation contained http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/271146-32-since#6004346

790-800MB/s is achievable using a PCIe SSD but no one can hit 768MB/s with SATA 6Gb/s SSD.

That is how I came about 1.6GB/s ceiling for a 16Gb/s SATA Express SSD.

I do not expect SATA Express SSDs that are below $1/GB @ 1.6GB/s sequential read/writes in 2014 based on this 2008 headline. It took them more than 5 years to get a $1/GB @ faster than 500MB/s sequential read/writes out the door. I would expect mainstream SATA Express SSDs by 2020.

Maybe by then 4K resolution *IPS displays will cost less than $1,000. The ones being peddled now at below $2,000 are TN displays.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 3, 2014)

I'm a bit perplexed at the excitement for a 7D II at $1999. At that price point, you could have a 6D, which IMHO, is a superior wildlife camera.

Most wildlife comes out in terrible light, with dark backgrounds (forest, brush, rock etc). The 6D has a far superior center point focus in low light, and it simply takes pictures at dawn and dusk that the 7D cannot.

Fifty extra AF points and nine extra FPS don't matter when you can't freeze a sauntering moose at dusk.

As an owner of both cameras, I often chuckle at the comments that the 7D is a "great wildlife camera in good light". The problem is, the light is crap more often than not. And a cell phone image looks good in perfect light. The true mark of a good camera is what it does when conditions are marginal to sub-marginal.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 3, 2014)

dolina said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Is the transfer synchronous (8 bits per byte and no framing) where 16Mbits/sec = 2Mbytes per second?
> ...



Yes but the transfer rate and the throughput rates are different. If we assume that they are using block transfers, the transfer rate is 2GB/sec. That rate remains the same no matter what the read or write speed of the card is....

For example, if the read rate of the card is 200MB/sec, the data is transferred in pulses of 2GB/sec... the line is only active 10 percent of the time. Get a 500MB/sec card and the data is still transferred in pulses of 2GB/sec, but the pulses are more frequent and the line is now active for 25 percent of the time.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 3, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> I'm a bit perplexed at the excitement for a 7D II at $1999. At that price point, you could have a 6D, which IMHO, is a superior wildlife camera.
> 
> Most wildlife comes out in terrible light, with dark backgrounds (forest, brush, rock etc). The 6D has a far superior center point focus in low light, and it simply takes pictures at dawn and dusk that the 7D cannot.
> 
> ...



I shoot a lot of airshows in full sunlight, and I guarantee you the 7D will crush the 6D in these situations.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 3, 2014)

Drizzt321 said:


> *I didn't think Canon manufactured memory cards.* Maybe rebranded, sure.



From Canon's 2013 financial report.



> In the industry and others sector, a rebound in capital investment for memory devices led to a pickup in demand for semiconductor lithography equipment in the latter half of the year, while demand for lithography equipment used in the production of flat panel displays (FPD) showed healthy market growth for mid- and small-size panels used mainly in smartphones and tablet PCs, and a modest recovery for large-size panels.



It's easy to forget how big Canon really is. They are one of the few big players producing the machines that make computer chips.
In an indirect way you could say that a percentage of all memory cards are made by Canon.

For a company so proud of producing camera components in house, I'm actually surprised that they don't have their own line of memory cards. They certainly have the capability. For example, they do make their own LCD panels, but it seems that is mostly for industrial applications.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 3, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> I'm a bit perplexed at the excitement for a 7D II at $1999. At that price point, you could have a 6D, which IMHO, is a superior wildlife camera.
> 
> Most wildlife comes out in terrible light, with dark backgrounds (forest, brush, rock etc). The 6D has a far superior center point focus in low light, and it simply takes pictures at dawn and dusk that the 7D cannot.
> 
> ...


As someone who shoots (or more accurately, attempts to shoot) small birds in flight, the speed of the burst mode is very important. Things are happening too fast to react to. An autofocus system that is more than the centre point is very important because they do not fly straight and level... you will NOT keep them centered in the frame.

And I will defer to your knowledge of how animals only come out in poor light, although as a canoeist who can paddle silently and smoothly, my ears pick up a lot of wildlife in the daytime and my quiet calm nature lets me float and drift nearer, particularly with feeding moose.... like this one in bright sunlight at noon.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 3, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a bit perplexed at the excitement for a 7D II at $1999. At that price point, you could have a 6D, which IMHO, is a superior wildlife camera.
> ...



That's not lowlight wildlife shooting, though, as conveyed in my post.

The 7D does have faster AI-Servo acquisition than the 6D, that's for sure. But this isn't as big of a problem for giant planes that you can predictably track versus ruffed grouse surprising the hell out of you and taking off through rays of sunlight in a dim forest.

The 7D is good at full sunlight sports, that's for sure. But so are a lot of cameras.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 3, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> As someone who shoots (or more accurately, attempts to shoot) small birds in flight, the speed of the burst mode is very important. Things are happening too fast to react to. An autofocus system that is more than the centre point is very important because they do not fly straight and level... you will NOT keep them centered in the frame.



I agree. The 7D, theoretically is better for birds in flight. The faster AI-servo acquisition and increased burst rate/FPS is a big advantage. But, where the 7D loses is in feather detail and noise in less than ideal conditions. Also, you can always tell what bird shots were taken with a 7D...the backgrounds are often blocky and noisy, especially in blue skies.





> And I will defer to your knowledge of how animals only come out in poor light, although as a canoeist who can paddle silently and smoothly, my ears pick up a lot of wildlife in the daytime and my quiet calm nature lets me float and drift nearer, particularly with feeding moose.... like this one in bright sunlight at noon.



Nice shot.


----------



## jrista (Feb 3, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a bit perplexed at the excitement for a 7D II at $1999. At that price point, you could have a 6D, which IMHO, is a superior wildlife camera.
> ...



Additionally, I shoot the majority of my birds and wildlife during the day, when there is plenty of light. Even when the ungulates come out "late", that is still usually before sunset, and even around sunset, the current 7D is still a superior tool than the 6D. When it comes to low light, aperture is the only thing that REALLY gets you anywhere...ISO is only a stopgap measure. I use a 600mm f/4 Lens with the 7D right now...it would only be better paired with the 7D II.

I would offer that it is more myth than fact that animals only come out in poor light. If you are only willing to sit and wait in areas where animals are known to come out at dawn or dusk, then sure, that's true. But if you actually go hunting for deer, moose, elk, bear, coyote and whatever else it is your after, then it is not all that hard to find them. I actually prefer to find wildlife during the morning hours a little after the sun has risen, or in the afternoon hours a couple/few hours before the sun sets. You get not only good light but excellent light, you can use lower ISO settings and still have good frame rates, and often the animal behavior is more interesting (i.e. coyotes hunt most around sunset, however you can find them roughhousing and playing a couple hours before and a little after sunset...you actually have a higher chance of finding different, more interesting behavior if you look for them when there is still light!)


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> Even when the ungulates come out "late", that is still usually before sunset, and even around sunset, the current 7D is still a superior tool than the 6D.



I'd disagree there. The 7D sat in my bag for my 6D for just that reason.



> I would offer that it is more myth than fact that animals only come out in poor light. If you are only willing to sit and wait in areas where animals are known to come out at dawn or dusk, then sure, that's true. But if you actually go hunting for deer, moose, elk, bear, coyote and whatever else it is your after, then it is not all that hard to find them.




Moose - crepuscular
White-tailed deer - crepuscular
Elk - crepuscular
Mule deer - crepuscular
Black bears - crepuscular
Bighorn sheep - crepuscular
Coyote - crepuscular
Wolf - crepuscular

And if you are "hunting" wildlife, chances are you're just going to scare it away. They will hear and smell a clumsy human before you even know they are there. The best option it to hike into a spot and wait them out, making sure to stay downwind. This is also a good way to surprise an animal and get your tail kicked. 

It goes without saying that the noise characteristics and ISO bumping of a full frame sensor completely outweighs FPS and buffer in these crepuscular situations. Of course, the ideal option is the 1DX, but not everyone can justify such a purchase. I've used my 7D in these situations thousands upon thousands of times, and the images are just too destroyed with noise (I shoot in RAW). Going to full frame in this context opened up a whole new world of shooting.

Here's an example from a recent wilderness shoot in Montana. It was -5, and just about night. Taken at ISO 12,800 with no processing in RAW:







Now, is it a great image? No. But the 7D couldn't do it in RAW, and that's the point. 

If someone said to me, "I want to shoot ungulates and bears, should I get the $1999 7D II or the 6D?" I would absolutely steer them towards the 6D.


----------



## jrista (Feb 3, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Even when the ungulates come out "late", that is still usually before sunset, and even around sunset, the current 7D is still a superior tool than the 6D.
> ...



 Well, disagree all you want. However, if we are going to go by empirical evidence, try this. All of these shots were taken during the day, in anywhere from bright daylight to evening sun to gloomy overcast:


































Sorry for the number of images...but I wanted to make as strong a point as possible, and the more examples the better: I've never had trouble finding wildlife during the day! They far more frequently seem curious of me when I'm "hunting" than afraid, probably because I wear camo and know how to move. The only times they run away is when I get too close...however with a 600mm lens on a cropped sensor, you really can't even GET that close and still be able to get the shot. All of the images above were taken with the Canon 7D and either the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens (@ 400/5.6) or the 600mm f/4 L II lens. All were taken over the last 8 months. 

I stand by my assertion that wildlife never being out, about, and active during daylight hours is a myth. It's harder to find your "prey" for sure, but it is very far from impossible. It just takes a little practice and skill, like any other aspect of photography. 

Animals are always out and about, for one reason or another. Or, in many cases, they may not be "about"...but you can still find them in interesting settings. A year or so ago, during early summer, I found a large group of bucks in Cherry Creek chewing cud in the waist-deep grass of a meadow, only their antlers were visible. (Not sure where the images are right now...looks like I may have never published them.) I was able to get within about 10 feet for some great shots...not even one of them seemed concerned I was there. I actually ended up making a few clicking and kissing noises to get them to be a little more interesting after I'd sat there for 10 minutes. They weren't even phased by that, and it was over a half hour before they finally decided to get up. They were momentarily startled when they first noticed some "creature" only 10 feet away, but after that they were merely curious (especially the younger ones...older bucks tend to take a single yearling under their wing the first year after their birth during non-rut moths.) They meandered on without running away after a few minutes of curious observation of the photographer, and gave me a whole bunch more interesting shots. 

I'd personally take a 7D or a 7D II any day over a 6D. Not because the 6D isn't a good camera, it's great. But when it comes to any kind of action, I want at least 6fps, no less. The 6Ds 4.5fps is only marginally faster than my 450D (first DSLR)...too many lost frames with such low frame rates. Even at 6fps, you just don't always get the best moment. And I can't stress enough the value of an all-cross type 19pt AF system. I frequently shoot with off-center AF points for composition. It works well enough, even in poor light with the 100-400, that it gives the 7D that extra leg up over the 6D. So it isn't just fps, it is both fps and AF that make the 7D the more useful camera.

If it came down to the 7D II and the 5D III, it would be a tougher call. The AF of the 5D III is so good that the loss in frame rate doesn't hurt as much. The 7D AF system is better than the 6D's no question, but under extended use it does reveal a "jitter" as I call it...an inability to maintain ideal focus frame-to-frame. That often eats away at printable keepers. For web keepers, the 8fps reigns supreme, and there is no way a 6D could compare. I'd buy a 1D X if I could afford it, however if I had to choose between the 7D, 6D, and 5D III, it would be a 5D III first, 7D a very close second (and probably as a backup body regardless), and a 6D third. I suspect a 7D II will make it that much harder to choose between a 5D III and a 7D II...in particular if it has a better AF system and a higher frame rate (61pt or 41pt and 10fps would be absolutely KILLER!)

Oh, and sorry for this, but here are a couple more examples. I just have to respond to this:



MichaelHodges said:


> Now, is it a great image? No. But the 7D couldn't do it in RAW, and that's the point.
> 
> If someone said to me, "I want to shoot ungulates and bears, should I get the $1999 7D II or the 6D?" I would absolutely steer them towards the 6D.



Actually, it's a pretty good image! I wouldn't discount it. Now, the 7D certainly can't do 12800, however it can do ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 and even beyond with post-process edits, and the results can be excellent:





Taken a short while after sunset (diffuse light due to patchy clouds):
ISO 3200, 1/100th f/5.6 Lifted +1/2 stop in post plus additional shadow lifts. 
Effective ISO: ~5000





Taken well after sunset (I could barely see the bird with my eyes, almost pitch dark): 
ISO 3200, 1/6th second f/4. Lifted ~ +1 1/3rd stop in post including shadow lifts.
Effective ISO: ~8500

The latter shot was quite a feat, however both were pretty dark scenes to my own eyes. I already had the camera set on ISO 3200 and forgot to adjust it for the bird shot, because I was more concerned about keeping everything stable. Even with a tripod, a 1/6th second shot of a bird without getting motion blur required a very careful hand. ISO 6400 would have only gotten me 1/10th of a second, which wouldn't have changed the other factors. The bird, a heron, thankfully stood entirely motionless the entire time. For an effective ISO 8500 shot, it is pretty darn good for the 7D and shows its metal. Given the shutter speed, and the fact that it really was NIGHT...you could see the faintest glow of deep red on the clouds over the mountains (which were behind me), but other than that, there wasn't any real available light that I could see...this easily compares to your ISO 12800 shot.


----------



## Kayo (Feb 3, 2014)

Wow, great shots Jrista! 4 and 7 are my faves.


----------



## Old Sarge (Feb 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> Taken well after sunset (I could barely see the bird with my eyes, almost pitch dark):
> ISO 3200, 1/6th second f/4. Lifted ~ +1 1/3rd stop in post including shadow lifts.
> Effective ISO: ~8500
> 
> The latter shot was quite a feat, however both were pretty dark scenes to my own eyes. I already had the camera set on ISO 3200 and forgot to adjust it for the bird shot, because I was more concerned about keeping everything stable. Even with a tripod, a 1/6th second shot of a bird without getting motion blur required a very careful hand. ISO 6400 would have only gotten me 1/10th of a second, which wouldn't have changed the other factors. The bird, a heron, thankfully stood entirely motionless the entire time. For an effective ISO 8500 shot, it is pretty darn good for the 7D and shows its metal. Given the shutter speed, and the fact that it really was NIGHT...you could see the faintest glow of deep red on the clouds over the mountains (which were behind me), but other than that, there wasn't any real available light that I could see...this easily compares to your ISO 12800 shot.


I am going to stay out of the 7d v 6d argument since both have their advantages/faults and I am waiting patiently (hard at my advanced age) to see what the 7d Mk II (or whatever) has to offer. But this picture is really impressive. Great post-processing on it. You have some serious talents and patience.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 3, 2014)

Nice shots, Jrista. Those deer are pretty cute. You definitely know how to put your 7D to good use. But (and you knew this was coming) those were all in fantastic light.


There's no question that wildlife can be out in the middle of the day. However, wildlife tends to be farther away in these situations, and usually it's harder to catch the sort of specialized behavioral activities that happen around crepuscular times, such as sparring, fighting, and hunting.



> I stand by my assertion that wildlife never being out, about, and active during daylight hours is a myth. It's harder to find your "prey" for sure, but it is very far from impossible. It just takes a little practice and skill, like any other aspect of photography.




That's not what I said, though.  I said most wildlife comes out at dusk and dawn, which is true.

I agree with you that FPS is nice. But it's almost irrelevant when you can't stop the action. If a grizzly comes out of the brush at dawn, and you can't freeze the bear, all the FPS and buffer in the world is worthless. That's my problem with the 7D.

Full frame will take you into another category of "light sucking". Even more so if you can slap on an F4 of F2.8 lens. You can be shooting well after the 7D is retired for the evening. Now, some may say you really should only shoot in the best light, but these people have never traveled 2,000 miles to film rare grizzly bears. The grizzlies choose the light, not you. So you take what you can get. And in this situation, the full frame sensitivity will buy you more chances than a few extra FPS.

In Montana, during the white-tail rut and bighorn rut, it gets dark at 4:30 p.m. and light at 8: a.m. The sky is often cloudy. The 7D does a mediocre job in these conditions, which is why the people I shoot with have migrated to full frame.

Anyway, cool shots. Thanks for sharing. I would be rude not to share my own now.  Here's one from last December in the Montana wilderness with the 6D, at dusk and very poor light. Wild bighorn can be quite tricky.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 3, 2014)

I work on a site that includes a military firing range.... As a result, the area is closed to the public and there are great numbers of wildlife, including deer. The deer are most active in the morning and evening. They are harder to spot in the middle of the day as they tend to stay out of the "heat of the midday sun". At night the bed down in the tall grass.

So yes, they are more likely to be spotted with the sun lower in the sky, but I've never had a problem shooting them with a crop camera..... It only rifles that you con't shoot these deer with


----------



## jrista (Feb 3, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Nice shots, Jrista. Those deer are pretty cute. You definitely know how to put your 7D to good use. But (and you knew this was coming) those were all in fantastic light.



Thanks! I am pretty good with a 7D...but a lot of it is post processing. The 7D is definitely noisier...it takes some technique to make the results look good (even in good light).

You seem to have missed the last two. Go re-read...they were after sunset and literally at night. I also wouldn't say that all of the samples were in fantastic light. The first two were in pretty poor light...heavily overcast day (and they were actually fairly noisy). The last one was also taken in...odd light. I am pretty picky about my light. I generally refuse to shoot during the middle of the day unless there are just the right amount of clouds in the sky to diffuse it properly. I generally prefer morning or afternoon light, where the sun is at an angle. I also strictly try to keep myself on the sun-side of my subjects...so they get properly shaded. Sun has to be over one shoulder or the other at all times...I don't like it when the sun is directly behind me. 

The last sample photo I shared was in some rather weird light. There weren't exactly clouds per-se, more like a very thin sheet of water vapor high up. It messed with the light...didn't diffuse it right, but enough that everything felt really flat. The color was weird as well. I finally gave up trying to correct it in post, because I needed a 0.5 notch on the tint slider in LR to really get it right. 

So, not all were in fantastic light. Some were in ok light and the one was just in weird light... 



MichaelHodges said:


> There's no question that wildlife can be out in the middle of the day. However, wildlife tends to be farther away in these situations, and usually it's harder to catch the sort of specialized behavioral activities that happen around crepuscular times, such as sparring, fighting, and hunting.



I've captured coyotes hunting in the afternoon on several occasions (I even shared a shot of a coyote trotting about in the afternoon light in my last post, as well as hunting before sunset in fine light). I've also caught them playing with each other before and after sunset, when there is and is not light. It's too restrictive to say sunset is the only time you can capture such activity...that's my point. And, even in the case of animals come out at dusk and dawn...they are usually out BEFORE the sun actually sets and AFTER the sun has risen for a time, so you have time (even if it is only about an hour) to photograph them in good light. I think my other low-light shot of the yearling buck after sunset in poor light also demonstrates that it isn't impossible to use the 7D in those conditions either...at least, it isn't as bad as you've made it sound. 



MichaelHodges said:


> > I stand by my assertion that wildlife never being out, about, and active during daylight hours is a myth. It's harder to find your "prey" for sure, but it is very far from impossible. It just takes a little practice and skill, like any other aspect of photography.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I guess it depends on how you use your equipment. In the case of Canon sensors, once you reach high ISO settings, read noise is 3e- or less. At ISO 3200, the 7D read noise is 2.8e-, which is actually a little better than at ISO 6400. With so little read noise, you have a lot more freedom to push exposure around in post, and you don't run the risk of encountering any banding noise, as that usually disappears entirely by ISO 1600. If I want to shoot at higher ISO settings with the 7D, all I really need to do is increase shutter speed, and increase exposure by however many stops in post. The outcome is effectively the same thing as using a higher ISO setting...visually, noise isn't any different. (In fact, this was pretty much the case with my Night Heron at Night shot.)

So if I need it, I still have *both *FPS and and high ISO...it's just that the ISO in camera is 3200, my shutter is faster so the images look underexposed without further processing, and I have to boost exposure in post by a stop or two to actually achieve ISO 6400 or 12800 (or even 25600 if I REALLY needed it...although by that level, the 7D's small pixels are going to be true IQ-killing factors...even with _my _post-processing techniques... )



MichaelHodges said:


> Full frame will take you into another category of "light sucking". Even more so if you can slap on an F4 of F2.8 lens. You can be shooting well after the 7D is retired for the evening. Now, some may say you really should only shoot in the best light, but these people have never traveled 2,000 miles to film rare grizzly bears. The grizzlies choose the light, not you. So you take what you can get. And in this situation, the full frame sensitivity will buy you more chances than a few extra FPS.



In the case of traveling 2000 miles to film rare grizzly bears, I honestly have to say the 6D wouldn't be my choice. It would be a 5D III at least. If I was traveling that far to film and photograph bears, I'd probably be renting a 1D X. But I certainly wouldn't be using a 6D. So yes, I agree FF has the low-light touch, not denying that at all. 

If we are talking about making legitimate arguments, I am specifically saying the 6D, even with it's light sensitivity, doesn't offer me anything even remotely compelling enough to use it as a wildlife camera. I would certainly take what I can get...with a rented 1D X if the only options were buy a 6D or rent a 1D X. 



MichaelHodges said:


> In Montana, during the white-tail rut and bighorn rut, it gets dark at 4:30 p.m. and light at 8: a.m. The sky is often cloudy. The 7D does a mediocre job in these conditions, which is why the people I shoot with have migrated to full frame.



If I lived in Montana, I'd be using FF as well. Still, it would be a 5D III or 1D X...not a 6D. The argument I'm making is quite specifically in regards to the use of the 6D as a wildlifers body...it isn't. It may have good high ISO performance...but it just isn't an action body. Maybe I've been spoiled by a high frame rate. It's possible. I would probably still want to be stuck with my 7D, and most certainly a 7D II, and employ my underexposure+virtual ISO tricks with ISO 3200 and post-process exposure boosting, than take a 6D along with me on any wildlife trip (even if it's just to my "backyard" here in Colorado). 



MichaelHodges said:


> Anyway, cool shots. Thanks for sharing. I would be rude not to share my own now.  Here's one from last December in the Montana wilderness with the 6D, at dusk and very poor light. Wild bighorn can be quite tricky.



The ram is a beauty! Love how he's bleeting.  I've tried to photograph bighorn on a couple occasions up Waterton Canyon. I've never captured anything I felt was a keeper. People always tell me they come down to the trail level from higher up in the mountains and that you can sometimes even give em a pet, but every time I am up there, they are way up the slope, jumping about amongst the rocks and brambles...they never really "show" themselves. At some point I'll head up there again...it's a long way, though...6.5 miles one way, so a 13 mile round trip...and you can only hike in or ride a bike...bleh.


----------



## jrista (Feb 3, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I work on a site that includes a military firing range.... As a result, the area is closed to the public and there are great numbers of wildlife, including deer. The deer are most active in the morning and evening. They are harder to spot in the middle of the day as they tend to stay out of the "heat of the midday sun". At night the bed down in the tall grass.
> 
> So yes, they are more likely to be spotted with the sun lower in the sky, but I've never had a problem shooting them with a crop camera..... It only rifles that you con't shoot these deer with



Sure, animals are active around the extremes of the day. My point was that you don't have to wait for them to come to you...you can go to them as well. That's usually what I do with my 7D...I hike about and find the wildlife, wherever they are. At the right times of year, they tend not to be too dangerous or afraid either. The second photo I shared, of the yearling buck...he was incredibly curious about me, and would creep in slowly until he was about 7 feet away, then his fear would take over for just a moment and he would bound away, then go frolicking in circles around me for a while, before finally settling down again and giving me that ridiculously cute "OOOhhh, what is it! I'm SOOO CURIOUUUS!! I...just...have....to....get....a little closer.....nooooo! Hahaha!!" look. ;D ;D ;D Those shots were about 3pm in the afternoon in a meadow off the road hidden by a stand of treed during summer...so many hours before sunset (which was almost 9pm at that time.) I find deer like that all the time, and usually within 10 minutes of hiking into the woods to find a meadow somewhere. 

During the rut, there is usually a period of time that starts about an hour before sunset and lasts until maybe 45 minutes after sunset where you are most likely to see two deer fighting. But earlier in the day, they kind of distance spar with each other, especially the younger bucks that don't have full racks. At least in Colorado here with the deer herds at Cherry Creek and Chatfield, the big bucks will usually have a following of yearling and two year bucks with them and their harem. These younger guys will frequently try their luck with a doe, and you can watch them chase a doe around for hours until the bull finally decides he doesn't like it, and chases the two-years off. By late afternoon, the bulls are starting to get into it...and that settles the younger bucks down. I have yet to actually photograph a fight, but I've captured sequences of big bulls corralling and controlling their does, sometimes chasing down the random stray girl.

So, at least given my experience tromping around the local state parks that I have easy access to, interesting wildlife activity is far from being restricted to just right at sunset or just right at dawn. You just have to spend the time finding it.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I work on a site that includes a military firing range.... As a result, the area is closed to the public and there are great numbers of wildlife, including deer. The deer are most active in the morning and evening. They are harder to spot in the middle of the day as they tend to stay out of the "heat of the midday sun". At night the bed down in the tall grass.
> ...



100% agreement...

I've been working outside putting a feed on a satellite dish and had the deer wander right up to me with several of them lying down in the shade of the dish.... Animals can be very easy to spot in the middle of the day if you are quiet and don't make loud noises.  The best one was the wild turkeys attacking thier reflection in the door of the building..... or the geese standing on the hood of the car....


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 3, 2014)

> I've captured coyotes hunting in the afternoon on several occasions (I even shared a shot of a coyote trotting about in the afternoon light in my last post, as well as hunting before sunset in fine light). I've also caught them playing with each other before and after sunset, when there is and is not light. It's too restrictive to say sunset is the only time you can capture such activity...that's my point. And, even in the case of animals come out at dusk and dawn...they are usually out BEFORE the sun actually sets and AFTER the sun has risen for a time, so you have time (even if it is only about an hour) to photograph them in good light. I think my other low-light shot of the yearling buck after sunset in poor light also demonstrates that it isn't impossible to use the 7D in those conditions either...at least, it isn't as bad as you've made it sound.



Your deer shots were all in very nice light. I've gotten plenty of coyotes in the day, too. Bottom line is almost all behavior is affected by food source. But, the science is very clear. The animals we are talking about are primarily crepuscular, meaning their highest activity levels are at dusk and dawn. Anyone who's taken a road trip knows this quite well. The anxiety levels tick up a notch at dusk and in the early mornings.

The fact that I see deer and coyotes in the daytime does not mean the animals aren't crepuscular. ;





> In the case of traveling 2000 miles to film rare grizzly bears, I honestly have to say the 6D wouldn't be my choice. It would be a 5D III at least. If I was traveling that far to film and photograph bears, I'd probably be renting a 1D X. But I certainly wouldn't be using a 6D. So yes, I agree FF has the low-light touch, not denying that at all.



I spend weeks with grizzlies using a 6D and 7D. I probably should just get the 1DX, but I'm waiting to see how Canon responds to the dynamic range issue. The 5D III is a slight downgrade in sensor, so I haven't gone there although it's a nice package.



> If we are talking about making legitimate arguments, I am specifically saying the 6D, even with it's light sensitivity, doesn't offer me anything even remotely compelling enough to use it as a wildlife camera.



You really should shoot it alongside the 7D. The IQ is just on another level, and the usability extends into prime wildlife times. My original point was that for $1999, don't get yesterdays sensor tech. Get the FF.




> If I lived in Montana, I'd be using FF as well. Still, it would be a 5D III or 1D X...not a 6D. The argument I'm making is quite specifically in regards to the use of the 6D as a wildlifers body...it isn't. It may have good high ISO performance...*but it just isn't an action body*.



_Ovis canadensis_, wild, Montana's northwest rainforest region. Full speed, full extension.






It took me six days of single digits temps to get them to do that, lol. Throughout the sessions, I basically gave up on the 7D. It was too noisy, and had more trouble focusing in the worse light...even light that wasn't necessarily bad, but one shade such as dusk or sunrise light. It also wasn't as consistent as the 6D in burst mode, making the extra FPS seem irrelevant. This is about a 65% crop.

As someone who owns a 7D and a 6D, I can't recommend the 7D over the FF camera for wildlife (especially for ungulates and bears). Again, the point I made was not 6D versus 5D III or 1DX, It was "what do you tell a wildlife photog to get when he has $1999 and is choosing between a 7D, 7D II, and a 6D". For me, after using both side by side in wilderness conditions, the choice is pretty obvious. Go with the better sensor every time.


----------



## jrista (Feb 3, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> > If we are talking about making legitimate arguments, I am specifically saying the 6D, even with it's light sensitivity, doesn't offer me anything even remotely compelling enough to use it as a wildlife camera.
> 
> 
> 
> You really should shoot it alongside the 7D. The IQ is just on another level, and the usability extends into prime wildlife times. My original point was that for $1999, don't get yesterdays sensor tech. Get the FF.



I think this statement is radically premature: "don't get yesterdays sensor tech." The 7D II isn't even out yet. Regardless of what it ultimately is, it certainly won't be "yesterdays sensor tech". If it fuly lives up to the few things Canon has said about it, it should be a pretty amazing sensor. You can't write it off before it's even arrived!


----------



## Lurker (Feb 3, 2014)

> I'm a bit perplexed at the excitement for a 7D II at $1999. At that price point, you could have a 6D, which IMHO, is a superior wildlife camera.



I don't get this statement unless you know something you're not telling us. You're making a decision on the 7d II based on performance of the 7D. This is just faulty logic. No one seems to know what the 7D II will be or if/when it will actually exist. You're comparing 4 yr old tech to current tech. I would hope the current tech would be better.

I'll assume you expect the 7d II to be an incremental improvement, similar to how Canon manages the x0D line.
If this is the case there will be a lot of very disappointed people. The 7D was a huge improvement over the 50D and I expect the 7d II to be a huge improvement over the 70D.

The only thing that seems to be certain is that either you'll be surprised by the 7d II or I'll be disappointed.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 3, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> You really should shoot it alongside the 7D. The IQ is just on another level, and the usability extends into prime wildlife times. My original point was that for $1999, don't get yesterdays sensor tech. Get the FF.


I have no intentions to get yesterday's sensor tech.... That's why I am waiting for the 7D2.

And there is a lot more to a camera than just the sensor.... That's why the 1DX is so much nicer than a 6D and that's why, despite being more than 4 years old, the 7D is king of the crop cameras and is only now being challenged by the 70D.

The 7D2 is still speculation..... the rumours indicate a fine camera, but until it comes out, who knows what it will be.

We don't even know if the rumoured prototypes to be tested in Sochi are developemental prototypes or pre-production models.... NOTHING has been nailed down, not even the name... until it is on the market and in peoples hands, everything is pure speculation.

BTW... Remember Tamron and the 150-600? The collective wisdom before release was that it would be a terrible lens and very soft.... Then the collective wisdom was that it would not focus properly... yet as people get thier hands on them they seem to be praising the lens, and the reviewers with borrowed copies are ordering thier own... Pre-judgement is not a precise science


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> I think this statement is radically premature: "don't get yesterdays sensor tech." The 7D II isn't even out yet. Regardless of what it ultimately is, it certainly won't be "yesterdays sensor tech". If it fuly lives up to the few things Canon has said about it, it should be a pretty amazing sensor. You can't write it off before it's even arrived!




Basing a statement on proven physics isn't premature. There are a couple guide posts here as well: Canon continuing to lose the sensor IQ race, and the work they did on the 70D. 

I hope the 7D II sensor is an improvement on the 70D sensor (which isn't impressive at all).


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 3, 2014)

Lurker said:


> I'll assume you expect the 7d II to be an incremental improvement, similar to how Canon manages the x0D line.
> If this is the case there will be a lot of very disappointed people. The 7D was a huge improvement over the 50D and I expect the 7d II to be a huge improvement over the 70D.



No, I don't expect an improvement. I don't see each new camera in the 1.6x line as automatically better than the last in terms of IQ. 

I owned the 50D and upgraded to the 7D. The 50D, IMHO was a better camera. It seemed to lack the waxy-looking AA filter the 7D has, and the keeper rate was better, including lowlight focusing and cropping. It also wasn't hit with AF issues. Hand-holding was superior too, and I didn't have the problems with noisy shadows and blue skies at ISO 100 that the 7D has. The 7D does have sightly better high ISO handling, though.

Sure, the 7D has superior specs (including supposedly improved AF), but I never saw those results in the field. The one feature I really loved was the video. 

Even better than the 50D, IMHO, was the 40D. This was the "sweet spot" for 1.6X. Low ISO quality was very nice, and the 40D just seemed to have better color. Very nice images from this camera, highly crop-able in ISO 100-800. Clean, crisp images.

I do hope the 7D II is fantastic so everyone can enjoy it. But my days with 18+MP 1.6x sensors are over.


----------



## mkabi (Feb 3, 2014)

Lurker said:


> > I'm a bit perplexed at the excitement for a 7D II at $1999. At that price point, you could have a 6D, which IMHO, is a superior wildlife camera.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



True... 7D was a huge improvement over the 50D, but... 7D was a new line altogether from the x0D line....
7DII is not a new line... its a improvement from the 7D... an existing line.

From past behavior...
50D to 60D to 70D - modest improvements, some down-scaling like the magnesium alloy body.
5DII to 5DIII - modest improvements

I'm not saying that there wasn't huge leaps and bounds in the past, look at the difference between 5D classic and the 5DII. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D

I'm just saying that you shouldn't expect too much... yeah Nikon and Sony are doing great things, but they are hurting in sales... I mean aren't we still getting through the after effects of the recession? 
And really... we should give the Japanese a break, including Sony and Nikon...
Aren't they still getting over the after effects of the 2011 Tsunami... its like a double blow for them. Recession + Tsunami... what the hell?


----------



## mkabi (Feb 3, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> BTW... Remember Tamron and the 150-600? The collective wisdom before release was that it would be a terrible lens and very soft.... Then the collective wisdom was that it would not focus properly... yet as people get thier hands on them they seem to be praising the lens, and the reviewers with borrowed copies are ordering thier own... Pre-judgement is not a precise science



Exactly my point, down play it.
It will suck, it will suck ass, it will suck so bad that it will feel like [insert a past nightmare].

And then when it releases... huh... not bad after all.


----------



## jrista (Feb 3, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I think this statement is radically premature: "don't get yesterdays sensor tech." The 7D II isn't even out yet. Regardless of what it ultimately is, it certainly won't be "yesterdays sensor tech". If it fuly lives up to the few things Canon has said about it, it should be a pretty amazing sensor. You can't write it off before it's even arrived!
> ...



Hmm, your not giving Canon enough credit. The 70D has a 32% larger full well capacity than Canon's prior 18mp sensor. That is actually quite impressive, given the age of Canon's fabrication technology! Quantum efficiency jumped about 5%, which further helps higher ISO settings. The 70D is a quarter to a third of a stop better at all higher ISO settings than the 7D, thanks to lower read noise. The DPAF is certainly quite impressive! Even if you don't care for video, DPAF is still an impressive innovation. 

The 70D, however, was never going to be the APS-C sensor that Canon used to introduce a whole bunch impressive new technology with. The 7D II is the most likely camera that Canon will introduce impressive new technology with, given that the 7D was the first to bring the (at the time "new", now much loathed so many years on and overused) 18mp APS-C sensor, the new-at-the-time 19pt AF system, and the new-at-the-time 63-zone iFCL metering sensor. The 7D was packed with new technology from Canon. Canon's customers put the 7D line on a pedestal, and expect great things from it. If Canon misses that ball, it'll hurt them.

Given the historical facts, and the position the 7D holds among Canon fans who don't have the near seven grand to shell out for a 1D X, but want the extra reach and need the higher frame rate and better AF system, it is very much premature to call the 7D II sensor "old technology". It can't just be some mediocre evolution of the old 7D sensor...that would cost Canon some customers for sure. 

As for physics...there is still plenty of room to push things without necessarily innovating radical new technology. And, there is plenty of radical new technology to apply to the 7D sensor. Canon could use new silicon fabrication techniques to double or triple quantum efficiency using black silicon, which effectively eliminates photon loss due to reflection off the silicon itself. They could employ light pipes to reduce reflection off the wire etching around each photodioe. They could move to BSI. They could layer photodiodes to increase FWC. They could use color splitting rather than CFA to capture nearly 100% of the incident light at every pixel. 

Sorry, but proven physics have achieved a hell of a lot more than you seem to be aware of. All of these technologies exist. Most of them have been employed in high sensitivity video sensor technology for a few years now. Some of them have been prototyped and proven to work (i.e. color splitting has doubled or more the low light performance of Panasonic prototype sensors, black silicon has reduced read noise to less than 2e- at room temperature and increased quantum efficiency several fold over standard silicon fabrication.) It's a long way to go before physics stops progress, ESPECIALLY at the relatively huge pixel sizes of the 7D or as proposed for the 7D II. Were still in the 3-4 micron range...researchers and small form factor manufacturers are doing amazing things at 1.1 micron, and are now moving into the 0.95µm scale.

The 7D II, if it employed even some of these technologies, could be really amazing as far as APS-C sensors go. It could close the gap quite a bit with the 5D III. Sometimes noise doesn't matter if eliminating it costs you too much in overall detail. The key strength of the 7D line is its higher pixel count, smaller pixels, and higher spatial resolution. That's where the true reach factor comes into play...and a lot of people put more value on reach and frame rate than they do on noise levels. (Not to mention the fact that noise is pretty easy to clean up in post once you know how...as my example images can attest to.)


----------



## jrista (Feb 3, 2014)

mkabi said:


> Lurker said:
> 
> 
> > > I'm a bit perplexed at the excitement for a 7D II at $1999. At that price point, you could have a 6D, which IMHO, is a superior wildlife camera.
> ...



What the? The 5D III was a _*MASSIVE*_ improvement over the 5D II!!!! What are you people smoking??!?...this thread has gotten really weird. The 5D III was such a significant improvement across the board over the 5D II, so much so that it still sells like hotcakes. 6ave sold 60 copies in less than two days just two days ago! Even for a sale, that is some serious product movement...

Wow...some of the comments on this forum lately are just out of _wackjob field_... 

If we assume the 7D II is similarly upgraded as the 5D III was, and given that sensor IQ is the single most requested improvement with the 7D II, regardless of whether that means more megapixels or fewer megapixels, and given Canon's propensity to deliver on their customers key requests...I expect the 7D II to get a better sensor. A meaningfully better sensor.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 3, 2014)

There's always room to push things and improve them. The question is how long is a photog wiling to wait? By the time theoretical wish-lists come to fruition, full frame sensors will be cheaper and the point will be moot.

As far as closing the gap with the 5D III anytime soon, that's a very unrealistic "if". 

Noise matters. It will always matter. In the future, IQ is what's going to keep DLSR's alive amidst the smart phone horde.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 3, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> > If I lived in Montana, I'd be using FF as well. Still, it would be a 5D III or 1D X...not a 6D. *The argument I'm making is quite specifically in regards to the use of the 6D as a wildlifers body...it isn't*. It may have good high ISO performance...*but it just isn't an action body*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



BTW, Jrista, you sort of forgot about this.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 3, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> There's always room to push things and improve them. The question is how long is a photog wiling to wait? By the time theoretical wish-lists come to fruition, full frame sensors will be cheaper and the point will be moot.
> 
> As far as closing the gap with the 5D III anytime soon, that's a very unrealistic "if".
> 
> Noise matters. It will always matter. In the future, IQ is what's going to keep DLSR's alive amidst the smart phone horde.


Yes, but you can not make comparisons across generations. It is possible that when the 7D2 comes out that the noise levels and ISO performance will approach the 5DIII, but that comparison is as unfair as comparing a 6D to a 7D. We could compare the 70D to a 5D2... they are close, but that's also an unfair comparison....

The fact remains that because of the difference in pixel sizes, USING THE SAME TECHNOLOGY a FF camera should be about a stop to 1 1/3 stops better than a crop camera. If new technology emerges on a crop camera that closes the gap, then as soon as it comes out on the FF camera, this gap will be restored. The cost of the actual sensor has become moot. I read somewhere that it costs 5 times as much to fabricate a FF sensor as a crop sensor... that's a pretty big disparity, but we are talking a $25 sensor against a $5 sensor... $20 difference in a thousand dollar cameras is not a big thing... What makes a 7D2 more expensive than a 6D is everything else... AF, Frame rate, weather sealing, improved controls, possible high speed storage, etc

And far far more important that sensors, we have AF. As I never tire saying, who cares what the IQ is on a blurry picture?


----------



## jrista (Feb 3, 2014)

I didn't forget about anything. I remember the image. Let me counter. Sun sitting just below the horizon, I had to focus on a dark bird in dim diffuse light to get this:







Bird in fast flight, hunting post-sunset, flapping it's wings. This is one shot out of a sequence of about 28, which represents a mere 3.5 seconds total time. I had to not only AF, but maintain good AF lock the entire time, while hand holding a lens and panning. 

This was taken with a 7D. At the perfect moment. The 6D would have captured 15 frames, rather 28, a difference of 86%! I was able to capture nearly TWICE the number of frames, in bad light with continuous AF tracking...with a lowly 7D. 

Sorry, but honestly, I could have nailed that same exact bighorn shot with the 7D. The background would have been slightly noisier...but I have the skill to completely nullify that in post with one of the numerous tools I have at my disposal, or even just a bit of careful layer masking, basic NR and gaussian blurring in photoshop. The sheep themselves would be just as sharp and detailed (if not more detailed), since noise perceptually affects softer OOF areas and flat tones or gradients more than sharp detail. 

This isn't about camera capabilities anymore...it's really gotten deep into the realm of personal preference. Honestly, I don't fault you in any way for personally choosing a 6D. If that is your preferred camera and you know how to make it work for you, more power to you! But to claim the 7D couldn't get that shot really only speaks to a lack of skill with it, not a lack of capability of the hardware. The 7D is and has always been an eminently capable camera. It DOES have its one drawback, that jitter between frames that sometimes crops up and costs you some frames...but only if you intend to print them. For web-size images, anything scaled down 2x or more, it's still a no-brainer to capture a consistent 8fps keepers with the 7D, even in lower light.

And thats the 7D! When it comes to the 7D II, no one in their right mind thinks it will have the same problems as the original 7D. Canon started improving the 7D's problems with the first rebel that used the 18mp sensor. By the time they got to the 650D, the 18mp sensor on that actually had solved most of the 7D's problems. Canon won't just drop some crappy sensor into the 7D II. As I said before...too many people have too many high hopes for the 7D II, too many people look to the 7D line to provide them with reach, frame rate, and good AF so they can do their action photography without having to spend untold thousands, for Canon to botch it. Canon CAN'T botch it. Canon MUST do something pretty radical with the 7D II. And it sounds like the chances of the 7D II arriving this year are fairly good, so it isn't like were going to be waiting some untold number of years before we finally see it...that theoretical wish list, or at least parts of it, could come true within months.



If I had to pick a camera today to do wildlife with, my personal choice would be the 5D III. It would really be the 1D X, but there is too much cost involved there for the primary benefit of frame rate, so it's the 5D III. To me, low noise isn't the end all-be all of IQ. IQ is a conflation of multiple factors: Sharpness, detail, subject pose (i.e. getting the right frame out of a sequence), and noise. Sharpness when it comes to fast action requires an excellent AF system. Neither the 6D nor 7D hold a stick to the 5D III when it comes to locking and tracking focus. Detail requires pixel count. If you don't have big long lenses, the cheapest way to put pixels onto subject is with an APS-C sensor. Subject pose...this one relies on two things: AF system and frame rate. Personally, I think an ideal frame rate is between 10-12fps, leaning towards 10fps (balance between the right moment, and not having to deal with too many files). Subject pose relies on the AF system because the more options you have to compose in-frame, while tracking, without having to bother with recomposition, the better. Again, the 6D doesn't hold a stick. The 7D is better...but it still doesn't compare to the 5D III. The 5D III is king here. (I like using off-center points so much I even trained myself to move the AF point WHILE TRACKING BIF...and the off-center points in the 7D work well even after sunset.) Even more important is the number of cross-type points you can use in lower light. The 7D and 6D? One. The 5D III? The full 41, so long as you have an f/4 lens! And you still have 21 high precision cross type points at f/5.6! That's probably the 5D III's single most significant edge as a composition-friendly wildlife body over the 7D and 6D. Noise, no need to explain anything here, except to say background noise is a BREEZE to clean up, and some noise in sharp detail areas isn't a problem to start with. 

In all of that above...sensor only really came into play once...noise. But noise is the easiest thing to clean up in post with good tools or a little bit of technique, so it isn't the most important thing. AF system and frame rate come out on top as the most important factors for serious high action photography...bighorn clacking horns, deer in the rut, birds in flight...I'll take AF and frame rate over noise any day. I guess the one thing I'd change with the 7D, besides the AF jitter, is the hazy low pass filter. I don't mind having a strong low pass filter, I prefer it actually for bird photography. But you are right...it does have that somewhat ugly tone to it. I'd certainly trade that if I could. I expect the 7D II to have a slightly weak OLPF given the trend with Canon's other recent APS-C cameras, so I suspect noise with a 7D II will be easier to clean up and more sightly than the 7D.


----------



## dolina (Feb 3, 2014)

What people care about are read/write speeds. Rare if you ever see anyone talk about block transfers.



Don Haines said:


> Yes but the transfer rate and the throughput rates are different. If we assume that they are using block transfers, the transfer rate is 2GB/sec. That rate remains the same no matter what the read or write speed of the card is....
> 
> For example, if the read rate of the card is 200MB/sec, the data is transferred in pulses of 2GB/sec... the line is only active 10 percent of the time. Get a 500MB/sec card and the data is still transferred in pulses of 2GB/sec, but the pulses are more frequent and the line is now active for 25 percent of the time.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 3, 2014)

I am hoping for a 5D3-like AF system in the 7D2. I am also hoping for a full stop improvement in noise. It doesn't have to be "as good as" the sensor in the 5D3 or 6D. The 7D2 is for focal-length-limited work without having to spend big bucks and hand-hold heavy lenses.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 3, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> It is possible that when the 7D2 comes out that the noise levels and ISO performance will approach the 5DIII




That's a pipe dream. 




> And far far more important that sensors, we have AF. As I never tire saying, who cares what the IQ is on a blurry picture?



When shooting wildlife, blur is primarily caused by not being able to stop action. The AF on Canon cameras has been quite good for some time now.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> Sorry, but honestly, I could have nailed that same exact bighorn shot with the 7D.



Yes, but that wasn't the point. You claimed the 6D wasn't for wildlife action. It does pretty well...better than my 7D actually in poor light. More keepers throughout the run even with less burst. I attribute this to superior sharpness, dynamic range, and color overall.




> This isn't about camera capabilities anymore...it's really gotten deep into the realm of personal preference. Honestly, I don't fault you in any way for personally choosing a 6D. If that is your preferred camera and you know how to make it work for you, more power to you! But to claim the 7D couldn't get that shot really only speaks to a lack of skill with it,




I merely posted the image to prove the 6D _can_ get that shot. However, the 7D did fail many times in light that the 6D did fine in (that image wasn't one of those...the light is good).




> not a lack of capability of the hardware. The 7D is and has always been an eminently capable camera. It DOES have its one drawback, that jitter between frames that sometimes crops up and costs you some frames...but only if you intend to print them. For web-size images, anything scaled down 2x or more, it's still a no-brainer to capture a consistent 8fps keepers with the 7D, even in lower light.



Some of what I shoot gets sold at stock sites, so i need to have 100% detail at acceptable levels. but I do apply many images for web-use, so I get your point.





> And thats the 7D! When it comes to the 7D II, no one in their right mind thinks it will have the same problems as the original 7D. Canon started improving the 7D's problems with the first rebel that used the 18mp sensor. By the time they got to the 650D, the 18mp sensor on that actually had solved most of the 7D's problems. Canon won't just drop some crappy sensor into the 7D II. As I said before...too many people have too many high hopes for the 7D II, too many people look to the 7D line to provide them with reach, frame rate, and good AF so they can do their action photography without having to spend untold thousands, for Canon to botch it. Canon CAN'T botch it. Canon MUST do something pretty radical with the 7D II. And it sounds like the chances of the 7D II arriving this year are fairly good, so it isn't like were going to be waiting some untold number of years before we finally see it...that theoretical wish list, or at least parts of it, could come true within months.



I wouldn't hold your breath on any groundbreaking sensors or IQ. Just a hunch.





> If I had to pick a camera today to do wildlife with, my personal choice would be the 5D III. It would really be the 1D X, but there is too much cost involved there for the primary benefit of frame rate, so it's the 5D III. To me, low noise isn't the end all-be all of IQ. IQ is a conflation of multiple factors: Sharpness, detail, subject pose (i.e. getting the right frame out of a sequence), and noise. Sharpness when it comes to fast action requires an excellent AF system. Neither the 6D nor 7D hold a stick to the 5D III when it comes to locking and tracking focus. Detail requires pixel count. If you don't have big long lenses, the cheapest way to put pixels onto subject is with an APS-C sensor. Subject pose...this one relies on two things: AF system and frame rate. Personally, I think an ideal frame rate is between 10-12fps, leaning towards 10fps (balance between the right moment, and not having to deal with too many files). Subject pose relies on the AF system because the more options you have to compose in-frame, while tracking, without having to bother with recomposition, the better. Again, the 6D doesn't hold a stick. The 7D is better...but it still doesn't compare to the 5D III. The 5D III is king here. (I like using off-center points so much I even trained myself to move the AF point WHILE TRACKING BIF...and the off-center points in the 7D work well even after sunset.) Even more important is the number of cross-type points you can use in lower light. The 7D and 6D? One. The 5D III? The full 41, so long as you have an f/4 lens! And you still have 21 high precision cross type points at f/5.6! That's probably the 5D III's single most significant edge as a composition-friendly wildlife body over the 7D and 6D. Noise, no need to explain anything here, except to say background noise is a BREEZE to clean up, and some noise in sharp detail areas isn't a problem to start with.



One of the reasons I picked the 6D was for its superior long exposure noise over the 5D III, but yeah, the 5DII just has a better focus system, period....except for the 6D's -3 EV center point, which is basically just insane. I've gotten shots with that in complete darkness. 




> In all of that above...sensor only really came into play once...noise. But noise is the easiest thing to clean up in post with good tools or a little bit of technique, so it isn't the most important thing. AF system and frame rate come out on top as the most important factors for serious high action photography...bighorn clacking horns, deer in the rut, birds in flight...I'll take AF and frame rate over noise any day.




I was there, Jrista, with both cameras, shooting the bighorns as they bashed horns. The 6D was just better in noise, color, sharpness and overall keepers. The 7D had trouble in early morning and evening when the bighorn were most active. It just couldn't lock focus in that light the way the 6D could. Even with less pixels on the rams, they looked better.


Even with the increased FPS and burst, the 7D had too many misses. Even though I used it on and off for days, I will not post the images, even though some contain smashing horns. Just too grainy, with the detail chewed away, and strange colors. But, when the light is right (such as your bird shot) the 7D can perform very well.

I hope that Canon makes the 7D II the way you like it.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 3, 2014)

dolina said:


> What people care about are read/write speeds. Rare if you ever see anyone talk about block transfers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


agreed.

My point is the transfer rate does not change. It is kind of like ethernet..... packets are sent at the same speed.... it's how many packets per second that gives you the transfer rate.  A fast memory card and a slow memory card both transfer data at the same block speed. A faster memory card is ready sooner with the next block and that's what makes it faster.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 3, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> When shooting wildlife, blur is primarily caused by not being able to stop action. The AF on Canon cameras has been quite good for some time now.


I have a 60D at home. I have a 7D at work. The 7D beats the c**p out of the 60D's AF system for both moving objects and for stationary objects.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> When shooting wildlife, blur is primarily caused by not being able to stop action. The AF on Canon cameras has been quite good for some time now.



Yes, the AF on Canon cameras costing less than $3K has been quite good for some time now, and it's no coincidence that that period began with the release of the 7D. Unfortunately, the 6D's AF is 'gimped' relative to other FF bodies in the lineup, in the same way that Canon has typically used AF performance for product differentiation.


----------



## jrista (Feb 3, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Even with the increased FPS and burst, the 7D had too many misses. Even though I used it on and off for days, I will not post the images, even though some contain smashing horns. Just too grainy, with the detail chewed away, and strange colors. But, when the light is right (such as your bird shot) the 7D can perform very well.



Sigh. You don't quite seem to get it. This is the ORIGINAL of my bird shot:






You seriously call that "the right light"? That's terrible light. It's exposed properly, the histogram was about 1/2 way into the right-most histogram bar...but to actually get contrast exactly on the eye, where you want focus to occur, is difficult when the subject matter around the eye is all shadows. I had to process the image to bring up the detail in the bird such as you saw it in the previously posted version. 

The only benefit of a scene like this is for tracking, really...the strong contrast between bird and sky makes it easier for any camera to track the subject...it just doesn't do anything to help you lock AF on the part of the subject you want (yet the 7D did quite well in that respect.)


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 4, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


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



I was talking about 150mph+ small R/C airplanes, that can do 15-50g turns.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 4, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


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


That's a hard target!


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 4, 2014)

jrista said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Even with the increased FPS and burst, the 7D had too many misses. Even though I used it on and off for days, I will not post the images, even though some contain smashing horns. Just too grainy, with the detail chewed away, and strange colors. But, when the light is right (such as your bird shot) the 7D can perform very well.
> ...



_Weird_. You're acting as if I was privy to the original image, as if my comments were based on an unprocessed file that I could never possibly see until you posted it.

Let's try to be a bit more intellectually honest if we're going to have a discussion.





> You seriously call that "the right light"? That's terrible light.



How could I call a photo I never saw "right light"? You only posted the final image, which I then commented on.


----------



## Canon1 (Feb 4, 2014)

jrista said:


> You seriously call that "the right light"? That's terrible light. It's exposed properly, the histogram was about 1/2 way into the right-most histogram bar...but to actually get contrast exactly on the eye, where you want focus to occur, is difficult when the subject matter around the eye is all shadows. I had to process the image to bring up the detail in the bird such as you saw it in the previously posted version.
> 
> The only benefit of a scene like this is for tracking, really...the strong contrast between bird and sky makes it easier for any camera to track the subject...it just doesn't do anything to help you lock AF on the part of the subject you want (yet the 7D did quite well in that respect.)



This image is not properly exposed. Your histogram is displaying the exposure of the entire image. The raptor is way under exposed. Your final image would have been much cleaner if you had pushed exposure to the right a couple of stops. But I do agree with your point regarding the 7d as a much better AF performer then the 6d and with the 5diii being king (never owned a 1dx due to the cost). 

I personally had a love-hate relationship with my 7d and a love-love relationship with my 5diii. 

I'm with you on the 7dii. If it is almost as good as the 5diii at high ISO (with easy to manage luminance noise) and has a new generation AF system with 8-10 fps.... It will be the perfect nature photographer compliment to the 5diii. My hopes are high and I don't think canon will let me down.


----------



## jrista (Feb 4, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You seriously call that "the right light"? That's terrible light. It's exposed properly, the histogram was about 1/2 way into the right-most histogram bar...but to actually get contrast exactly on the eye, where you want focus to occur, is difficult when the subject matter around the eye is all shadows. I had to process the image to bring up the detail in the bird such as you saw it in the previously posted version.
> ...



If I had pushed exposure to the right "a couple stops", the sky would have been completely blown. Additionally, my shutter speed was already getting rather low...I wanted it low enough to produce blur in the birds wings, but if I let it get any lower, it would have resulted in the entire bird being motion blurred. Personally, I don't really like how bird in flight photos end up looking with a blown sky...and when you process to lift the deeper shadows (which would have still been fairly deep), you end up with a funky noise halo around the subject (not exactly sure why...seems to be a 7D thing...right where the sky meets the bird, that little border of ever so slightly blurred pixels, there is a sudden tonal drop from 255 to 245-250...looks nasty). For the scene, in order to preserve the sky, the exposure was dead on. The histogram was all the way to the right-most bar in the histogram chart. I may have been able to eek out another third stop, however when your primary task is to zero in on and track the bird, you stick with what you originally chose on the exposure. 

Also, the post-processed version of the raptor:






Turned out pretty well in the end. Exposure with a digital camera is as much about knowing what you can do in post, as it is knowing how to use the histogram and where your highlight cutoff is. The shot was at ISO 400. At that ISO, you actually have pretty good DR (still around 11 stops), but you don't have nearly as much banding noise. So you can lift the shadows by quite a bit (in this case, I think I lifted them almost two stops). The whole entire exposure was increased (including the sky a little)...there was some slight banding visible originally, but after boosting the exposure the banding in the sky faded. There is still some noise at full size on the raptor's underbelly and in the lower tail...but overall it is pretty clean. I also really like the fact that the sky is still a pale blue, rather than a blown white! But, that is also somewhat personal taste...if you don't care about the sky, you certainly could have exposed more.

(BTW, check out Art Morris' book "The Art of Bird Photography", read the chapter on exposure, and let me know if you think Art would have chosen anything different. ;P)



> I'm with you on the 7dii. If it is almost as good as the 5diii at high ISO (with easy to manage luminance noise) and has a new generation AF system with 8-10 fps.... It will be the perfect nature photographer compliment to the 5diii. My hopes are high and I don't think canon will let me down.



I don't know that I said the 7D II would be almost as good as the 5D III. I did say the gap between the 7D and 5D III could be closed with the 7D II. There will still be a gap, but I don't see any reason why it would be as wide as between the 7D and 5D III today. Even if we assume that Canon doubles Q.E. to 80% (unlikely), moves to black silicon (probably also unlikely), that might bring the 7D II's FWC at ISO 100 to ~60,000e-. The 5D III would still be ~68,000e-. The 7D would need even more technology to close the gap any farther than that. Color splitting along with BSI, on top of double the Q.E. and black silicon, might actually put the 7D II over the top with 70ke- or so...but that is honestly a LOT of technology to pack into a new generation APS-C sensor. 

I think Canon is an innovative company...but these innovations have already been made, many are patented, and Canon is conservative. I think we'll see a jump in Q.E. to somewhere in the 55% range at best, maybe lightpipes, and a slightly weaker AA filter. I think that will really do wonders for 7D-class IQ...the 7D II will be a lot better than the 7D. It will close the gap in terms of high ISO IQ. But, realistically, the 7D II is probably at most going to have an ISO 100 FWC of around 30,000e- tops unless they reduce pixel count to ~16mp. There would be a very noticeable improvement in 7D II IQ over 7D IQ, and instead of an approximate 2-stop difference in high ISO performance with the 5D III/6D there would only be an approximate 1-stop difference. There won't, however, be any situation where the 7D II high ISO performance is actually "almost as good as" the 5D III or 6D. Nothing can really beat bigger pixels in that sense. Maybe layered photodiodes, but I've only read theoretical papers for non-foveon type layered photodiodes, and I don't even know if it is really a viable option...it's just a theory. 

So, you can get your hopes up for increased 7D II IQ relative to the 7D. Just don't get your hopes up for "nearly 5D III level high ISO noise". That is highly unlikely.


----------



## Canon1 (Feb 4, 2014)

Jrista,

Art Morris would not have kept the image you captured. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but nithing came together for you except pose and nailed focus. Really tough lighting. (Helps to illustrate your point with the other poster) Your right on the principal to keep the sky from blowing out, but you were really handed a horrible shooting situation and made the best of it. No camera would have done well in that situation. 

Personally I would have preferred a blown sky to get better details on the bird, but neither scenario is a win in this case. 

I'm not attacking your image, just discussing the technicals. I hated shooting above ISO 400 with my 7d but I would always opt for higher ISO to attain proper exposure on my subject. Again, you did well and I am impressed that you pulled as much as you did out of that raw file. Also, I find that the histogram lies by about half a stop on blown highlights. The in camera jpeg will show a blown highlight but the raw file retains about half a stop beyond that.


----------



## jrista (Feb 4, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> Jrista,
> 
> Art Morris would not have kept the image you captured.



Oh, that's not true at all! I've been a reader of Morris' blog for a couple years now. There are many occasions when he keep images that aren't ideally exposed, and he'll often put a fair amount of work in post into them in order to preserve as much as he can. Sometimes he'll turn poorly exposed birds like that into silhouettes, other times he'll use the diversity of tools at his disposal, like Nik Software's tools, to do what's necessary to correct exposure. 

I think if he had an exposure with a bird as dark as mine, he'd have found a way to make it a silhouette, I chose instead to recover the bird. 



> Not that there is anything wrong with it, but nithing came together for you except pose and nailed focus. Really tough lighting. (Helps to illustrate your point with the other poster) Your right on the principal to keep the sky from blowing out, but you were really handed a horrible shooting situation and made the best of it. No camera would have done well in that situation.
> 
> Personally I would have preferred a blown sky to get better details on the bird, but neither scenario is a win in this case.
> 
> I'm not attacking your image, just discussing the technicals. I hated shooting above ISO 400 with my 7d but I would always opt for higher ISO to attain proper exposure on my subject. Again, you did well and I am impressed that you pulled as much as you did out of that raw file. Also, I find that the histogram lies by about half a stop on blown highlights. The in camera jpeg will show a blown highlight but the raw file retains about half a stop beyond that.



Personally, I find the 7D does well up through ISO 1600. It's when I get above that that I really hate it, and it is really tough to find keepers at ISO above 1600. That's where a 5D III really comes in strong...it has almost twice the high ISO capability of a 7D, and it's noise tends to clean up better. If I needed a really excellent low-light performer for wildlife, it would be the 5D III: Excellent high ISO plus awesome AF.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 4, 2014)

Jrista -

I think you actually did a heck of a job processing that image. Underexposure happens in the field...the animals often decide the light, not you. It's not an airshow where you can predictably track targets. That said, IMHO, it's easier to fix the sky in Lightroom than it is to recover detail from shadows on the 7D, so I try not to underexpose BIF. This is why the dynamic range on the new Sony Sensors would be amazing for wildlife.

That said, there's something about the 7D that I just don't like for birds in flight. I think it might have something to do with that waxy AA filter look. Sometimes, when everything goes right, I'm blown away by the results. But more often than not, things are just slightly "off".


----------



## jrista (Feb 4, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Jrista -
> 
> I think you actually did a heck of a job processing that image. Underexposure happens in the field...the animals often decide the light, not you. It's not an airshow where you can predictably track targets. That said, IMHO, it's easier to fix the sky in Lightroom than it is to recover detail from shadows on the 7D, so I try not to underexpose BIF. This is why the dynamic range on the new Sony Sensors would be amazing for wildlife.



Well, you can't fix blown. Blown is blown. One of the major drawbacks of digital technology, really. 

I guess I might have gained another 1/3-1/2 stop out of the sky, but I don't think there was much left before I ran into the point where it started blocking up in that 250-255 level range (or equivalent 14-bit values). The problem with pushing ETTR too far is that once the first color channel hits 255, the rest block up on that and even if they themselves don't clip, you end up with that flat color, and odd transitions to the 240-250 level range. 

And to mess with exposure to maximize ETTR, I'd have had to have taken my attention off the bird, which was already on the move. I usually meter off the sky up 30° above the horizon, push exposure until the histogram is well into the rightmost zone, and go from there. This is one of the reasons I would LOVE for Canon to add a histogram to their Transmissive LCD in the OVF. If I could quickly switch to a histogram display in the VF, I could make the finer adjustments for fixing that kind of thing without having to take my eye off the ball. I could probably even train myself to deal with that kind of thing "procedurally" so I don't even need to really shift my mental focus, and keep it on maintaining ideal tracking. So many things Canon could do with their Transmissive LCD OVF technology...



> That said, there's something about the 7D that I just don't like for birds in flight. I think it might have something to do with that waxy AA filter look. Sometimes, when everything goes right, I'm blown away by the results. But more often than not, things are just slightly "off".



That is one thing I do indeed agree with you about. The 7D does have a faint "waxy" look to it, particularly at higher ISOs. I think that is actually more due to the low max saturation levels than to the AA filter, or perhaps the two working in concert. The 7D only has ~20,000e- at ISO 100 FWC. That is really low. When you get into higher ISOs, that really hurts color fidelity, which I think is part of that "waxy" look. The AA filter is certainly strong, but that is easy to combat with some unsharp masking...but the color fidelity...that's pretty tough to do anything about. In contrast, the SoNikon 24mp sensors have ~27,000e- FWC, which preserves more color fidelity at higher ISO settings, but FF sensors really can't be beat for higher ISO _color fidelity_...their SNR's are double or more what you get even from the better APS-C sensors. I think this is one of the things that makes the 1D X so exceptional at high ISO...it's monster pixels support a very high SNR and richer color fidelity.


----------



## dolina (Feb 5, 2014)

It appears that I may be in error. By using PCIe 3.0 overhead is largely reduced or even eliminated to allow for ~2GB/s.

But then again we are talking about a spec rather than practical application.

I just installed a 240GB Crucial M500 SSD onto a 2010 Macbook Pro with a SATA 3Gb/s interface. Feels like having a new computer all over again!

I could imagine how it'll be like with 10x or so faster data transfers. ^_^



Don Haines said:


> agreed.
> 
> My point is the transfer rate does not change. It is kind of like ethernet..... packets are sent at the same speed.... it's how many packets per second that gives you the transfer rate. A fast memory card and a slow memory card both transfer data at the same block speed. A faster memory card is ready sooner with the next block and that's what makes it faster.


----------



## IslanderMV (Feb 13, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15703\"></glusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15703\">Tweet</a></div>
> <p>More talk that prototype versions of the EOS 7D replacement will be sent to the Olympic games in Sochi this month. For the moment, a lot of the functionality and features are still “up for grabs” on the new model. The current timeline for the camera is an announcement in Q2 of this year with a release in Q3. Perhaps the camera will be tested further in Brazil for the World Cup?</p>
> <p>We expect to hear more during the Olympics, though any specs mentioned may still be omitted from the final consumer product.</p>
> <p>Source: [<a href=\"http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_7dmk2.html\" target=\"_blank\">NL</a>]</p>
> <p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>



Has anything new been seen at the Olympics yet ??


----------

