# Any news on the 7dMk2 now that CES is done



## coreyhkh (Jan 10, 2013)

I am itching for a replacement.


----------



## Bosman (Jan 11, 2013)

I hear that, bring the 7dm2 man, bring it!


----------



## ronderick (Jan 23, 2013)

Here's an interview with a Canon official:

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/20130124_584693.html

In the last part, the question on the 7D successor was raised. The official noted that the next generation camera is "not that far in the future" and is not only a spec-enhanced version, but promised to include some kind of new revolutionary technology... whatever that means.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 23, 2013)

ronderick said:


> Here's an interview with a Canon official:
> 
> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/20130124_584693.html
> 
> In the last part, the question on the 7D successor was raised. The official noted that the next generation camera is "not that far in the future" and is not only a spec-enhanced version, but promised to include some kind of new revolutionary technology... whatever that means.


 
Thanks for the link!

There has been lots of speculation that we might see rear illuminated sensors in APS-C and even FF bodies in the next round of new products.
This will reduce noise and make for higher ISO bodies as well as for higher pixel counts while maintaining photosite size.
The interview also hinted at a major move into mirrorless versions of DSLR's, so the 7D MK II could even become mirrorless.


----------



## jrista (Jan 23, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The interview also hinted at a major move into mirrorless versions of DSLR's, so the 7D MK II could even become mirrorless.



That would royally piss me off. I don't want a mirrorless 7D II...I want a standard DSLR 7D II. I LOVE my optical viewfinder and the 7D...I just want better IQ, not some radical format change. I hope to God that Canon doesn't ****** up the 7D by making its successor mirrorless...what a disaster!!!


----------



## Stichus III (Jan 23, 2013)

jrista said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The interview also hinted at a major move into mirrorless versions of DSLR's, so the 7D MK II could even become mirrorless.
> ...



I would accept mirrorless if Canon can give us a big improvement in IQ.


----------



## jrista (Jan 23, 2013)

When it comes to Canon and their blunders, I am happy to be vehement. They need to wise up and compete, but not radically change their existing lines such that they piss off all their existing customers. If they want to make a mirrorless 7D alternative calls something else, fine. But I've been looking forward to a DSLR style 7D II that has a nice, bright, usable OVF for too long. A move to mirrorless with an EVF would end my use of the 7D line forever. A move to mirrorless with EVF's on all Canon cameras would end my use of Canon...forever. 

DEATH TO THE EVF!!!


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 23, 2013)

It is interesting to reflect on the evolution of things....

Way back, once upon a time, in the good old days, add cliche here, you just looked through the back of the camera to see the view.... adjusted your aim and focus, put on the camera back, inserted the glass plate, and took the picture.

Then an amazing leap forward in technology happened... the film cannister... no more loading a single glass plate, no more loading your film carrier in a darkroom.... you could take dozens of shots without changing film. The downside of this is that you needed some way of seeing what you were looking at and focusing on because removing the camera back and looking through was no longer an option.... so the viewfinder was invented.

The viewfinder was a piece of glass off to the side of the lens that you looked through to aim the camera.... problem was, you were tasking a guess as to what you were seeing and you had to guess distances to focus... and how did you deal with different lenses..... the viewfinder was scribed with boxes to correspond to different lenses. Something better was needed..

After a few intermediate steps, the photography world settled on moveable mirrors so that you could aim and focus while seeing exactly what the film would see through the lens... and the SLR camera was born. 

When we started to go digital we had to relearn these lessons. The earliest digital cameras just had a glass windor to see what you were pointed at and minimal focusing ability, and then we relearned how to use a mirror to see through the lens and the DSLR was born. Eventually super low-res displays appeared on the backs of cameras.... and this is a big thing.... you no longer need a mirror and all the mechanicals to control it in order to see what the sensor sees. From this point the days of the mirror are limited.

Remember what the reason for the mirror was.... to see what the sensor sees. There are lots of mechanical parts and control systems to manage this mechanical function.... if it can be done better electronicaly then it should be done that way. You will save money and increase reliability.

Resolution of displays on the backs of cameras can now exceed the resolving power of the human eye. Optical viewfinders are now no longer critical to the opertion of a camera.... they are downgraded into being a nice thing to have. Electronic viewfinders, crude when they first came out, are now almost as good as optical and the time will come when they are better. Remember not so long ago when people said digital will never be as good as film? Times change.

Eventually we will have mirrorless cameras that exceed the limitations set by mechanical mirrors.... and that day is coming soon. We already have 4/3 cameras which exceed the 7D in IQ and getting close for focus. A mirrorless 7D2 would not supprise me..... and if it works better than a 7D, who cares if it has a mirror or not..... unless you really like mirror shake in your pictures...


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 23, 2013)

jrista said:


> A move to mirrorless with an EVF would end my use of the 7D line forever. A move to mirrorless with EVF's on all Canon cameras would end my use of Canon...forever.
> 
> DEATH TO THE EVF!!!



Oh I am sure Canon has heard all this during that FD to EF switch...and they did it anyways.

Circa ~1987 Jrista's forerunners said... "If they make my current FD lenses obsolete with new EF mount bodies...I'll ..I'll... never forgive them... I will...I will... arhmmm... grunt... move to Nikon!!! *Huff* *Puff*... I mean it this time..."

Canon knows you will get over it... whimper a bit, lick your wounds, and buy the mirrorless line and what's more...praise the same thing you spited as the best thing ever in a year from the switch. 

There is no shame in sucking it up and moving on.


----------



## zim (Jan 23, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > A move to mirrorless with an EVF would end my use of the 7D line forever. A move to mirrorless with EVF's on all Canon cameras would end my use of Canon...forever.
> ...



Did someone say FD........ still sucking it up....... stil trying to move on........ damn you Canon damn you ;D ;D


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 23, 2013)

jrista said:


> That would royally piss me off. I don't want a mirrorless 7D II...I want a standard DSLR 7D II. I LOVE my optical viewfinder and the 7D...I just want better IQ, not some radical format change. I hope to God that Canon doesn't ****** up the 7D by making its successor mirrorless...what a disaster!!!


Wow seriously dude? Chill out. It's astounding that people think that they individually know more than an entire multi-billion dollar corporation. And how do you know they don't have some amazing new technology that will give you the most amazing viewfinder you've ever seen? Wait until it comes out and then try it out, then come back and complain if you don't like it. But to write it off purely based on speculation is idiotic.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 23, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Electronic viewfinders, crude when they first came out, are now almost as good as optical and the time will come when they are better. Remember not so long ago when people said digital will never be as good as film? Times change.
> 
> Eventually we will have mirrorless cameras that exceed the limitations set by mechanical mirrors.... and that day is coming soon. We already have 4/3 cameras which exceed the 7D in IQ and getting close for focus. A mirrorless 7D2 would not supprise me..... and if it works better than a 7D, who cares if it has a mirror or not..... unless you really like mirror shake in your pictures...



Excellent points although I still think EVF technology is not there yet in one or two years? possibly but I dont think that likely. Maybe 5 years
The day will probably come where the EVF has its own dedicated processor to make it lag free and insantaneous
of course there are all the other benefits that can be put into an EVF like on screen information and overlays
who knows they could even have RED AF points!  (one day)


----------



## pj1974 (Jan 23, 2013)

Hi All.

Interesting thread, some good posts.

I have had the 7D since it came out, and love the camera. It was a real step up from my 350D in every way. The specs (eg FPS, AF pts) build quality, functionality (eg live view, video), body size and (believe it or not!) APS-C sensor are all positive attributes to me. 

Not that the 7D is perfect, eg it has more noise than I would like, but with careful exposure and post-processing, good results can be achieved even at ISO3200 to ISO4000. I have taken so many photos with it, that the camera feels totally natural to me. When I go back to my 350D - or when I go 'even further back' to my Fuji digital P&S, I think "wow, how did I ever use those tiny, limited view-finders?" [and use the tiny 1.5" rear display??] But I did, and still have thousands of great photos, real keepers with each!

I have used digital cameras with poor EVFs, but also those with much better ones. I remember when the DSLR world was caught be surprise with Live-View and Video. Many people were saying "It will never happen" or "The quality will be rubbish". While there are still improvements to be made, I think most of us will agree - Live-View and DSLR Video are maturing along quite well, quality is very good and each present many positive benefits to users. 

So, with regard to an EVF... I'd like to see a good one incorporated into a mirrorless Canon DSLR in the near future. Maybe that will be the 7DmkII (before the same progresses up to a FF). I'm sure the scientistics, electronic engineers, etc at Canon (and other DSLR companies) have been researching and developing these for ages. Or it might be that we're not quite ready, and the 7DmkII will come out, still having an OVF. 

Either way, technology is advancing in this segment in tangible steps, and should I upgrade my current 7D in the future (there is no reason to at this point in time) - I'm sure models succeeding the 7D eg 7DmkII, 7DmkIII, etc - in the right pair of hands - will be capable of taking stunning photos. 

I, for one, am very much looking forward to the future. 8)

Regards

Paul


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 23, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Electronic viewfinders, crude when they first came out, are now almost as good as optical and the time will come when they are better. Remember not so long ago when people said digital will never be as good as film? Times change.
> ...



Well maybe, just maybe, Canon has something up their sleeve which makes the EVF what you want, and now instead of in a couple of years. Not saying it is, but just maybe. Probably not though, I agree. I'm hoping it'll be something sensor related, like a completely new process and vastly improved tech which will migrate up and down the camera lines over the next few years.


----------



## jrista (Jan 23, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > That would royally piss me off. I don't want a mirrorless 7D II...I want a standard DSLR 7D II. I LOVE my optical viewfinder and the 7D...I just want better IQ, not some radical format change. I hope to God that Canon doesn't ****** up the 7D by making its successor mirrorless...what a disaster!!!
> ...



I've seen some pretty good EVFs on higher end digital video cameras. Those puppies can cost a couple grand, just for the EVF. There are apparently even better ones, such as the $4k-5k ones that come on the top-end Red cams. They are still not as good as an optical viewfinder...limited dynamic range, visible pixels (especially when your eye is an inch or so from the screen), etc. It will be very difficult for any EVF to ever be as good as an optical viewfinder, for a multitude of reasons. I am very strongly against EVFs as a general replacement for standard pentaprism viewfinders, it is WAY too early in the game for that. Maybe at some point when the technology has been perfected, offers considerably dynamic range, and reaches around 500DPI such that the visual acuity of someone with 20/10 vision can't see any pixels...then they might be ready to replace OVFs en-masse.

It really would tick me off to no end if Canon started replacing their standard DSLR lines (1D, 5D, 7D, etc.) with mirrorless versions that use EVF's. I like my DSLRs as they are, they have reached a pinnacle of ergonomic, viewfinder, and AF/AF drive capabilities. The only real area for solid improvement to the Canon DSLR, IMO, is the image sensor. I'd take a 7D with only the 61pt AF and a better image sensor as the 7D Mark II, and I'd be extremely happy. 

The moment Canon drops an EVF into an existing DSLR line, I'm gone. Canon demonstrated a great lack of will to produce competitive products with their first mirrorless entrant. The first EOS-M is a joke. The hybrid AF system with PDAF pixels is a slowpoke of a joke. Canon's CDAF is just as much a joke. The lenses are ok, nothing great as of yet. The competition is running circles around Canon when it comes to the mirrorless arena. Trade my 7D in for something with Canon mirrorless technology? HELL NO. I'll switch. Can't say who I'll switch to, but if Canon stuffs their wildly inferior mirrorless technology into an established DSLR line, they lose me.

They are free to create something entirely new as far as I'm concerned. A professional EOS-M line with a larger body, early-generation EVF, their crappy & slow hybrid AF, and all that would be GREAT in a new camera line from Canon. Those who are curious and want to explore early generation mirrorless technology can have at it. I just don't want them to mess with the things that *do the job, do it well, and serve my needs superbly* (or can, with some minor improvements to a couple components that don't require a radical departure from what currently works). _In other words...don't fix what ain't broke with something that is broke._ 

Is that _really _too much to ask for?


----------



## rs (Jan 23, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Electronic viewfinders, crude when they first came out, are now almost as good as optical and the time will come when they are better. Remember not so long ago when people said digital will never be as good as film? Times change.
> ...


While the lag can be reduced, it can never have less lag than an OVF. It can also never have more resolution. These factors will always be worse than an OVF, but soon the appreciable difference will disappear. Also, overlays are already getting there on OVFs. 

Having said that, there are times when an OVF isn't ideal - such as when you want to see how the sensor sees a high contrast scenes, appreciating the DoF with large aperture lenses, seeing the effect of exposure compensation, or hand held manual focusing with peaking, shooting video etc. So a hybrid setup like Fuji has would give the best of both worlds.

As the technology to make it truly great is some time off, I can't imagine it making it on any high end bodies just yet. And as for EVF only? That's where the EF-M mount comes in. I can't see Canon doing Sony and Pentax's trick of making a body that takes SLR deep flange lenses with no OVF. If they make a 7D mk II, it will have an EVF.


----------



## jrista (Jan 24, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> It is interesting to reflect on the evolution of things....
> 
> Way back, once upon a time, in the good old days, add cliche here, you just looked through the back of the camera to see the view.... adjusted your aim and focus, put on the camera back, inserted the glass plate, and took the picture.
> 
> ...



The original reason for the mirror was to see what the sensor sees. Today, it is also a crucial component of the highly advanced, high speed, highly effective AF systems. Without the mirror, you don't have a dedicated PDAF sensor. The secondary mirror behind the primary mirror is responsible for redirecting light to the AF unit. Drop that, and your stuck with FP-PDAF, and even for the BEST of that, it is still very inferior to what a dedicated AF unit can offer these days.

Sure, things progress, but EVF's and FP-PDAF have not progressed far enough to be adequate replacements for what current, existing DSLR lines have to offer. Stuff those things into a brand new line of camera, and let those who are interested in exploring use that...but replacing the tried and true that does the job well is inane. The 7D line should be kept as a standard DSLR with mirror box and all. That's my point. I'm not against progress...just against messing with established products that work.



Don Haines said:


> Resolution of displays on the backs of cameras can now exceed the resolving power of the human eye. Optical viewfinders are now no longer critical to the opertion of a camera.... they are downgraded into being a nice thing to have. Electronic viewfinders, crude when they first came out, are now almost as good as optical and the time will come when they are better. Remember not so long ago when people said digital will never be as good as film? Times change.



That is the 3.2" LCD screen, which is normally viewed at a distance many times greater than a viewfinder. LCD screens on the backs of cameras have also surpassed the visual acuity of someone with 20/20 vision...but someone like myself with 20/10 vision can still see the pixels of the LCD screen on the back of most cameras. Canon's newest are slightly better, but pixels are still visible. Visual acuity improves as you get closer, so the DPI of the large backside LCD screens is no where near high enough for a pixelation-free EVF. You would need to be pushing 500dpi before an EVF was good enough for a person with 20/10 vision to enjoy it without seeing pixels. 



Don Haines said:


> Eventually we will have mirrorless cameras that exceed the limitations set by mechanical mirrors.... and that day is coming soon. We already have 4/3 cameras which exceed the 7D in IQ and getting close for focus. A mirrorless 7D2 would not supprise me..... and if it works better than a 7D, who cares if it has a mirror or not..... unless you really like mirror shake in your pictures...



Possibly. There are some things you can do with optics that you will never be able to do with electronic devices. Dynamic range, for one, is effectively unlimited with optics (i.e. a pentaprism). The rate of refresh is effectively unlimited with optics. Both of those things would be limited with an electronic viewfinder. At some point in the future, and I'm not talking a year or two down the road but five to ten years down the road...EVF's will probably become good enough for most people, and their limitations will be mitigated enough that they won't matter much. But that day is way off, especially given the lack of quality or capability with the current EOS-M, which has piss-poor performance compared to every other competitor's offering. Canon shouldn't be stuffing their inferior mirrorless technology into their established DSLR lines yet. Stuff it all into something new and separate, let the experimenters spend their money and experiment, but leave the established DSLR's alone, and only improve them where they really need to be improved.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 24, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> When I go back to my 350D - or when I go 'even further back' to my Fuji digital P&S, I think "wow, how did I ever use those tiny, limited view-finders?" [and use the tiny 1.5" rear display??] But I did, and still have thousands of great photos, real keepers with each!


I know the feeling... Here's one taken in 1996 with an Apple Quicktake... 320 x 240 pixels at 8 bit color depth...no focusing, no iso settings, no screen on back.... just point and hope for the best. By 2001 we were up to lcd displays on the back, 1.3Megapixels, and you could set ISO, shutter speed, white balance...very crude by todays standards but even with those limitations got the second picture... and this the image with no editing. It will be interesting to see what the future holds


----------



## jrista (Jan 24, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > A move to mirrorless with an EVF would end my use of the 7D line forever. A move to mirrorless with EVF's on all Canon cameras would end my use of Canon...forever.
> ...



It took a long time for people to get over it, and the only reason they did is there were other offerings paired with the EF mount that made the switch worthwhile: AF. EVFs are a radically premature technology for use in professional-grade DSLRs. It some point they will probably become worth the pain of switching...but that time is WAY OFF. Its too early for Canon DSLR's to become mirrorless with EVFs.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 24, 2013)

jrista said:


> EVFs are a radically premature technology for use in professional-grade DSLRs. It some point they will probably become worth the pain of switching...but that time is WAY OFF. Its too early for Canon DSLR's to become mirrorless with EVFs.



Yes....It is a "radical" premature technology...it is a subversion!!! Reds under our beds!!! 
Oh the humanity!!! Think of the children!!! The poor children!!! :


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 24, 2013)

jrista said:


> Maybe at some point when the technology has been perfected, offers considerably dynamic range, and reaches around 500DPI such that the visual acuity of someone with 20/10 vision can't see any pixels...then they might be ready to replace OVFs en-masse.


ok... but i am typing this on an ipad with a 264ppi density, the Galaxy X IV phone is 440, 500 isn't too far in the future.... oh no! Wait a minute! Sony has a 1200ppi EVF.... the future may be closer than you expect....


----------



## rs (Jan 24, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe at some point when the technology has been perfected, offers considerably dynamic range, and reaches around 500DPI such that the visual acuity of someone with 20/10 vision can't see any pixels...then they might be ready to replace OVFs en-masse.
> ...


You need a much higher PPI than 500. These displays are tiny. Epson have just announced a sub one megapixel display (1024x768, only one quarter of the pixels found on a retina iPad display) to equal Sonys top of the line OLED viewfinder. It's diagonal measurement is 0.48 inch. That 2666 PPI. We need much more than that to make it lifelike.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 24, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> ok... but i am typing this on an ipad with a 264ppi density, the Galaxy X IV phone is 440, 500 isn't too far in the future.... oh no! Wait a minute! Sony has a 1200ppi EVF.... the future may be closer than you expect....



I agree with jrista about EVF's been a long way away from being truly good, but I also agree with your point that technology grows quickly, and it certainly will get there, probably sooner than the decade that jrista predicts.

the thing that made me cringe, though, is the thought that ... Intel is still expecting people to buy into its "ultrabook" system, where you get a 14" monitor and only a 1366x768 display. it's totally pathetic and not at all a surprise as to why people aren't buying into the system.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 24, 2013)

kubelik said:


> I agree with jrista about EVF's been a long way away from being truly good, but I also agree with your point that technology grows quickly, and it certainly will get there, probably sooner than the decade that jrista predicts.


One of my co-workers brought in an Olympus E-M5...we played comparison between it and a 7D. The EVF on it is comparable to the 7D, it takes better quality pictures in poor light, about the same in good light, and I really can't tell the difference in AF speed or accuracy. I was amazed that this camera was so good. It's hard to deny the existance of something you are holding in your hands... this wasn't just an EOS-M killer, it was a Rebel killer too, and if it wasn't for the way better user interface on the 7D and Canon Lglass, it would have topped the entire APS-C lineup.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 24, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with jrista about EVF's been a long way away from being truly good, but I also agree with your point that technology grows quickly, and it certainly will get there, probably sooner than the decade that jrista predicts.
> ...



interesting, I'll have to check out the E-M5's EVF. I have recently looked at the hotshoe EVF for Olympus and was not at all impressed by the size, pixel density, visual quality, or the refresh rate.


----------



## pj1974 (Jan 24, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> pj1974 said:
> 
> 
> > When I go back to my 350D - or when I go 'even further back' to my Fuji digital P&S, I think "wow, how did I ever use those tiny, limited view-finders?" [and use the tiny 1.5" rear display??] But I did, and still have thousands of great photos, real keepers with each!
> ...



Thanks Don for your quote & reply!

I really like the 2nd image you captured and shared, Don - the colours and composition really work well for me(though it seems its a huge 2MP image - ie 1600x1200 pixels, or did you upsize from the camera output? What a lovely feeling of cruising along on the mirrored water!

My first use of digital camera was in the late 90's - there was a camera (I think 760,000 pixels in total). Then in 1999 another updated one at work, a Kodak 1.3 MP. By 2000 I had my own Fuji P&S (3MP) which was much improved on the work's Kodak... and things have only got better from there! 

So, when I show people people some of my early digital photos- often people say "Wow, that is great... how many megapixels?!" and I say 1.3MP, or I have downsized a 3MP to a 1MP file, and I say "just 1"... and so begins my explanation that MP isn't everything.... really it isn't.... 

The above was a bit of a digression from the OP, but in one sense it proves, technology has done great things regarding digital imagine in just half a generation or so! I expect that there will be great mirrorless cameras, very capable and much along the same specs as our current DSLRs soon. How soon... well, I won't commit to a date, but definitely before many people expect it! 

Paul


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 24, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> I really like the 2nd image you captured and shared, Don - the colours and composition really work well for me(though it seems its a huge 2MP image - ie 1600x1200 pixels, or did you upsize from the camera output? What a lovely feeling of cruising along on the mirrored water!



I mis-spoke... It was 2.1 megapixels, my brand new high res Olympus camera. The image is untouched.... No editing. To me, that image was when I decided the time for film (at least for me) had passed


----------



## Aglet (Jan 24, 2013)

rs said:


> ..I can't see Canon doing Sony and Pentax's trick of making a body that takes SLR deep flange lenses with no OVF. If they make a 7D mk II, it will have an EVF.



speaking of which, I've been playing with that Pentax duck of a camera, the K-01.
It's image quality, even for a 12b raw file, exceeds the 7D I had by quite a margin because of the much better noise characteristics.
It's kind of fun to use if you're not in a hurry as it focuses as slow as an old PnS cam, which it essentially is, with interchangeable full-size lenses.

Fuji's made some _very_ fast focusing new cameras so it's not impossible for Canon and others to do so as well. Get rid of that mirror and you suddenly have a very high frame rate possible too.

It'll be interesing to see what tricks make it into the 7d2 but if it ends up as a mirrorless, it better not be a step backward in ANY way or there will be howls of derision around the world.
I'd say that odds are good a 7D2 will remain an SLR with a nice big OVF.


----------



## jrista (Jan 24, 2013)

rs said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Are 1200 or 2600 ppi EVF's in use in consumer-grade cameras today? And it seems my calculation was wrong before for the required PPI. We can derive the necessary PPI using a little math, though... If I use the visual acuity for a person with 20/10 vision (which for most people with corrective lenses these days is the case, including glasses, hard contact lenses, and for the most part soft contact lenses), we have 0.7 arc seconds, or 1/86th of a degree (normal 20/20 vision is about 1 arc second, or 1/60th of a degree). Turning degrees into a scalar distance and computing for resolving power:


```
tan(A) = opp/adj
tan(deg) = size_of_pixel/distance_to_screen
tan(1/86) * distance_to_screen = size_of_pixel
```

If we assume a one inch distance from the eye to the EVF, resolving power of the eye (the smallest resolvable detail in inches) would be:


```
P = tan(1/86) * 1" = 0.0002"
```

Or in terms of pixels per inch:


```
1"/P = 1"/0.0002" = 5000PPI
```

That assumes a 1" viewing distance, or a fairly standard 25mm. There are cameras with smaller viewfinder eye relief than that...some as small as 10-11mm. To account for that:


```
PPI = 1"/(P*D)
1"/(0.0002" * 0.43") = 11,268PPI
```

A 2600ppi display would definitely be getting there for 20/20 vision and a 1" relief, but if my calculations above are correct...for 20/10 vision we would really need 5000ppi (...sorry, I guess I dropped a zero somewhere before) and a 1" relief. If viewfinder eye relief is smaller than 1", then for 20/10 vision we might need as high as 12,000PPI!!! (Is that even possible? Each RGB pixel would have to be 2.1 microns in size, each subpixel element would be 0.7 microns, or 700nm, in size...at that size we are getting down to the wavelength of red light!!)

Assuming there are consumer-grade EVF's with 1200ppi or even 2666ppi, what are the refresh rates like? Color depth? I'd read several things about Sony EVF's clipping blacks or producing poor tonal range in the shadows. As far as I knew, that was Sony's latest and greatest EVF, but I could be wrong. That just demonstrates some of the DR problems I'm worried about though...you simply don't have ANY issues like that with an OVF. About the only issue I can think of with an OVF is the potential for blinding yourself in one eye if you look at the sun through the lens...but, well, that's operator error. ;P

Pixel density (and I mean full RGB pixel density, so 5000ppi would be the lower end limit as far as I am concerned) is only one factor. You still need to improve the dynamic range and color depth of such displays, improve their refresh rate, etc.

There are also other caveats that come into play with EVF's that have nothing to do with the design of the viewfinder screen. When it comes to low-light photography, the quality of the rendered image will drop, as you have to use the image sensor, with all of its limitations and flaws, to record the light coming through the lens. You'll experience increasing noise and banding as sensitivity cranks up to compensate for lower light. With an optical viewfinder, your eyes will do the adjusting for low light after a short while, and are far more adept at seeing in low light than an electronic image sensor could ever hope to be. I'd never be able to do night sky photography with an EVF...even with the large LCD screen on my 7D, I can't see anything except the brightest stars, and when cranking up ISO you still don't see any more as noise starts to take over and drowns everything out. I have to let my eyes adjust to the dark, but when they do, I can see hundreds of stars through the optical viewfinder, frame and focus my shots, etc.

I could probably keep going...the limitations of EVF's vs. an optical viewfinder are considerable, and many of them are not just due to the design of the viewfinder screen itself, some are due to the limitations in sensor sensitivity. The limitations of the sensor extend into other areas of mirrorless technology...for example low-light AF. FP-PDAF pixels in mirrorless sensors are moderately capable in good light, but they are part of the sensor. Image sensors are orders of magnitude less sensitive to light than specially designed phase detection AF sensors. The kind of low-light AF capabilities we enjoy today with -2EV and in some cases even -3EV AF without an AF assist light are at the very least years ahead of FP-PDAF, and given the nature of image sensors, which must be primarily tuned for a different purpose (capturing quality images), I wonder if FP-PDAF will ever be quite as good as a dedicated AF unit in a DSLR. 

Sure, I think progress is good, and I think the diversification of options is also good. However, mirrorless technology is premature for widespread use and replacement of DSLR tech. I'd say radically premature for use in professional grade mirrorless cameras that could potentially replace DSLRs...at least at current DSLR prices (one could always spend $50 grand on some kind of top of the line mirrorless with all the bells and whistles if they really want something mirrorless that will service modern professional photography needs, assuming such an offering is made available.)


----------



## junkwerks (Jan 24, 2013)

Maybe the threat of something new would explain Canon's positioning of the 6D as a possible alternative to folks not excepting something new like the discussions here. Certainly a new 7D price will be converging on the 6D.


----------



## rs (Jan 24, 2013)

jrista said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


No PPI is mentioned, but you can work it out easily enough. Here's info on the Sony screen:
http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_news/vol66/pdf/ecx331_332a.pdf

And here's info on the Epson screen:
http://m.dpreview.com/news/2013/01/23/Epson-announces-mass-production-of-high-resolution-SVGA-1024-x-768-EVF-LCD

And the number of pixels you're on about sounds to be about right for something that has enough resolution to look perfect to anyone. However, with anything but the largest EVF, I guess iPad retina resolution would suffice for most people?


----------



## jrista (Jan 24, 2013)

rs said:


> No PPI is mentioned, but you can work it out easily enough. Here's info on the Sony screen:
> http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_news/vol66/pdf/ecx331_332a.pdf



So, if the numbers there are correct, a 9.9 micron pixel would mean a 2565ppi resolution. I'd say that is about half-way there.



rs said:


> And here's info on the Epson screen:
> http://m.dpreview.com/news/2013/01/23/Epson-announces-mass-production-of-high-resolution-SVGA-1024-x-768-EVF-LCD



That one is about 2645ppi. Slightly better than the Sony one, but only about 50% of the pixel density I'd say is required for EVF's to be ready for use in a broad sense in a much broader base of mirrorless offerings that might potentially be capable of replacing DSLRs.



rs said:


> And the number of pixels you're on about sounds to be about right for something that has enough resolution to look perfect to anyone. However, with anything but the largest EVF, I guess iPad retina resolution would suffice for most people?



The iPad Retina resolution is 264ppi, intended for viewing at *arms length*. Remember, visual acuity is distance-dependent. At 12-15 inches viewing distance, of course a mere 260ppi is enough. The iPhone retina resolution is about 326ppi, intended for viewing around 6 inches. With an EFV, we are talking about viewing at 1/2" to 1" distance...you need a hell of a lot more pixels far more densely packed to push past the visual acuity boundary. If you only aim to meet 20/20 vision, all the people like myself end up SOL, being able to clearly see pixels (which, BTW, I can clearly see iPad retina pixels, and I can see iPhone retina pixels, as well as my new Lumia 920 pixels which clock in at about 330ppi, most of the time.)

If we assume manufacturers are aiming just to meet the minimum acuity requirements for those with 20/20 vision, they still need to reach 3448ppi. At 2666ppi, your about 30% short of the bare minimum target where the average person couldn't see pixels on a regular basis at 1" eye relief. At a 1/2" eye relief, you need 6900ppi. A lot of people stick their eye snugly right into the viewfinder eyepiece, moving it even closer. For the average person to see no pixels on an EVF, you still need about 5000ppi. I think that is the break-even point where EVF's start to get good enough for general use...5000ppi should be more than good enough for the average person, and just good enough for someone with high visual acuity, for a standard 1" viewing distance. If viewing distance shrinks (which is often the case for current mirrorless cameras in smaller form factors), 5000ppi is still not enough for the average person.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 24, 2013)

I purchased my 7D on the first day of availability at full MSRP. 
Did not regret it for a single moment. It is an amazing camera. Still love to use it today. 

By now, I would happily buy a 7D Mk. II with the following improvements:
* current state of the art sensor, at least on par with Sony/Nikon sensors, especially as far as DR is concerned: +2 stops DR and +2 stops in Hi ISO, meaning, ISO 6400 behaving like ISO 1600 on 7D. And ultra-clean ISO 100. 
* 18 MP are enough for me, but up to 24 MP would be fine too, since I do have lenses to match 
* AF further improved, ideally in via a really fast hybrid CD-AF + in-sensor Phase-AF 
* WiFi build in, GPS built in
* wireless EX-RT flash transmitter built in 
* retain pop-up flash / optical master 
* touch screen LCD, fully articulated!
* significantly better new generation battery packs ... with higher energy density like on Hero GoPro 3
* locking mode wheel [as on 5D III] with 4 Custom Mode Settings
* price not higher than 7D MSRP ... USD/€ 1700

That alone would make it a sure winner.
If Canon had any marketing genius working for them, they would just go ahead and bring it in two versions - DSLR AND mirrorless - with exactly the same specs, performance and functionality [except OVF vs. EVF and loss of regular phase-af on the mirrorless version] and at exactly the same price. 

7D Mk. II 
DSLR - size, weight, shape exactly like 7D, again with 100% OVF and regular Phase-AF in addition to hybrid-AF [CD-AF+ in-sensor PD-AF ... only used in live view] 

EOS-M7
mirrorless, size, weight, shape very similar to EOS-M ... only slightly larger due to brilliant, state-of-the-art EVF. Loss of mirror-dependent Phase-AF but still 80% AF speed and performance with hybrid AF system. EF-M mount, further improved kit-lens, plus a few pancake fixed focals. All EF-S and EF-lenses fully functional via existing EOS-M adapter.

I would take the mirrorless version, because I always wanted only one camera with only one ergonomic layout to use "ultralight" for travel, mountainieering and street photography ... and to use "like a DSLR" for specific tasks, where size & weight do not matter e.g. because large lenses and/or tripod are required anyway. 

Within a few months all Canon, its competitors and all of us would finally know for sure, where customers stand on DSLR vs. mirrorless. 

As I said ... pure genius.


----------



## garyknrd (Jan 24, 2013)

I personally do not see what they are waiting on. IMO they have the best lenses in the business. As a birder I do not want the 1dX or i would buy one. The new lenses are superb. The 7D just does not have the AF to make these big lenses shine anymore. If they come out with a pro-body crop in 1.5-1.6 they will rule the world. Hands down.
Just amazing to me they do not act? They would have hit on there hands like the old 5d II I think. It would make them millions.


----------



## coreyhkh (Jan 24, 2013)

Maybe Canon is waiting so they have the camera available day one.


----------



## Aglet (Jan 24, 2013)

just read another bit of japanese translation interview and it's typically vague, even on top of the usual japanese language + pre-show ambiguity.
saying the 7d2 isn't the story of the day likely means it's not going to show up at CP+
or..
it could mean something else will hilite the event (new sensor tech?) which may eclipse the 7d2 announcement which is alleged to be an incremental upgrade over the 7d.

We'll know what Canon wants to pry our wallets open with next soon enough.


----------



## jrista (Jan 24, 2013)

Aglet said:


> just read another bit of japanese translation interview and it's typically vague, even on top of the usual japanese language + pre-show ambiguity.
> saying the 7d2 isn't the story of the day likely means it's not going to show up at CP+
> or..
> it could mean something else will hilite the event (new sensor tech?) which may eclipse the 7d2 announcement which is alleged to be an incremental upgrade over the 7d.
> ...



I think its time to coin a new catchy phrase! ;D

*"Until we get our CR3, it just ain't gonna be!"*


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 24, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with jrista about EVF's been a long way away from being truly good, but I also agree with your point that technology grows quickly, and it certainly will get there, probably sooner than the decade that jrista predicts.
> ...



And apparently Olympus has announced that the replacement for the E-5 will support both 4/3 and micro-4/3 lenses, which kind of implies that it will be micro-4/3 with an adapter. Nikon users are also complaining about there being no D400. My guess is that everybody is working on professional mirrorless cameras and that the 7D replacement will actually have the name "M1". When it comes is anybody's guess.

Something like the Metabones Speed Booster makes this possible.. That device has a magnification of 0.707 and gives a 1-stop improvement in maximum aperture. However, the Canon version of APS-C is 1.6X not 1.5X. Therefore, a Canon-specific booster could have a magnification of 0.629 and give a 1-1/3 improvement in maximum aperture.


----------

