I, personally, would like to see some better low light sensitivity in a 7D2 than the current ISO 800-1600 usable limit of my 7D. As I see it, a very usable ISO 25,600 seems like the bar set by Canon's competitors if Canon wishes to be taken seriously in the present market. I don't think I'm asking for the moon here.
As I see it, Canon needs to step up to the plate on a variety of fronts with their next DSLR releases if they wish to maintain their market share. And this user's wish list is fairly short...improved Dynamic Range, cleaner output in the shadows, and, yes, vastly improved low light capabilities.
Whatever it's going to be I've already figured it'll have Dual Pixel AF and some sort of crippled version of 4K video (again, the rumor mill says, 2.5K) so that it won't compete with their Cinema cameras.
I've got new bodies budgeted for early next year to replace a 5D2 and 2 7D's...it's up to Canon to provide me with the tools I need, and what my daughter needs, if they want the sales. It's really that simple.
Wow if you are hoping for a 4-5 stop improvement in general SNR you are going to be utterly disappointed. That's way beyond what even a sensor that was perfect in every single possible way could possible deliver.
A 4-5 stop improvement in low ISO DR would be possible though (although perhaps a stretch since that is 1-2 stops better yet than the best currently out).
None of Canon's crop sensor competitors offer usable ISO 25600. That's reserved for a few FF cameras like the D4 and 1DX.
I'd be happy for the 7D II to show a full stop noise improvement at the pixel level whilst being 24MP. The 7D could get decent to good results at ISO 6400, but best to stick to ISO3200 or less. Push that to ISO 6400 and that would be excellent.
ggreene wrote:
I would certainly hope the 7D2 has much better high ISO. Doubt it will be at the level of the A7s though. A very large contingent of photographers are looking at the 7D2 for "reach" and that comes with pixel density which is probably going to limit it's high ISO ceiling. If it's a 24MP APS-C sensor you are talking about a ~60MP FF equivalent vs the A7s at 12MP. I'm not a sensor expert but from all I've read you are going to bump up against the laws of physics.
I would be happy with 5D3 like high ISO at that pixel density.
This is a body designed for sports/action. Canon has got to step it up in other places besides just the sensor. It's got to have 5D3 like AF and tracking, large buffer, and 10FPS for it to be a worthy successor. There are a lot of expectations for this body. Some of it Canon generated. If they try to foist some small incremental upgrade as a solution they are in for a rude awakening. ...Show more →
I would agree. Especially if they plan to charge anything close to $2k for it. I'll just spend a little more and buy a 1Dmk4 instead for action sports needs. Or keep my 7D/6D combo and get the best of both worlds (I don't shoot indoor low-light sports).
Although I expect the 7DII will have a 24MP sensor or thereabouts, personally I'd like to see Canon stick with the 18MP sensor which is sufficiently dense to allow heavy cropping without overly jeopordizing ISO performance. 18MP with at least a 1-2 stop improvement in ISO performance and 2-stops in DR @ 8-10x FPS and really deep buffer ==
Yeah, 1.6x crop will be the only one going forward as Canon has lenses designed for it. We might see a potential 5D4/1DX2 offer a 1.3x crop mode though.
ggreene wrote:
Yeah, 1.6x crop will be the only one going forward as Canon has lenses designed for it. We might see a potential 5D4/1DX2 offer a 1.3x crop mode though.
I suppose it depends on the sensor supplier. Isn't Canon still using some primitive technology that does not provide cropping? I know the more advanced companies have been using a HSC mode for a decade.
EB-1 wrote:
I suppose it depends on the sensor supplier. Isn't Canon still using some primitive technology that does not provide cropping? I know the more advanced companies have been using a HSC mode for a decade.EBH
The sensor supplier is Canon- and I don't see how 'cropping' has anything to do with the sensor's maturity. In camera cropping is just throwing away pixels for the hell of it.
When Nikon introduced High Speed Crop Mode to the D2X/s, it wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination "one of the more advanced companies" compared to Canon: it was a two horse race. And then, as now, Canon's offerings lacked for nothing in terms of innovation and sophistication.
And which other "more advanced companies" have been offering it "for a decade" in DSLRs? Kodak?
Besides, these days, high speed crop would only be needed of the camera doesn't have the processing grunt to push out full-sized files at the required speed and frame rate - it was a compromise solution, no more, no less.
In any event, Canon offers a far more rounded sRaw/mRaw option, if smaller files are such a big deal - something which Nikon only introduced for the first time with its D4s (which has no high speed crop mode, of course).
Trying to emulate APS-H in-camera is a complete - and pointless - irrelevance. That's why Canon won't do it, not because they can't.
When Nikon introduced High Speed Crop Mode to the D2X/s, it wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination "one of the more advanced companies" compared to Canon: it was a two horse race. And then, as now, Canon's offerings lacked for nothing in terms of innovation and sophistication.
And which other "more advanced companies" have been offering it "for a decade" in DSLRs? Kodak?
Besides, these days, high speed crop would only be needed of the camera doesn't have the processing grunt to push out full-sized files at the required speed and frame rate - it was a compromise solution, no more, no less. ...Show more →
Not at all. First of all, most cameras are still processing limited today. Second, who want to waste TB of disk space storing useless border areas? Who want to spend hours backing up that useless junk??
Just because Nikon does it it is some compromise?
In any event, Canon offers a far more rounded sRaw/mRaw option, if smaller files are such a big deal - something which Nikon only introduced for the first time with its D4s (which has no high speed crop mode, of course).
More well-rounded? How so? You get a fake semi-RAW at lowered resolution useless for when you need reach and inferior to downscaling a true RAW. at least with a true crop you get 100% full quality for it's usage.
Trying to emulate APS-H in-camera is a complete - and pointless - irrelevance. That's why Canon won't do it, not because they can't.
Umm no. There is plenty of a point to crop down to aps-c in camera. Heat, processing, storage, buffer space. But hey if you want to back up all our files for us, pay for all of our HDs and CF cards, magically provide us with larger image buffers....
EB-1 wrote:
I suppose it depends on the sensor supplier. Isn't Canon still using some primitive technology that does not provide cropping? I know the more advanced companies have been using a HSC mode for a decade.
EBH
It's more like we came up with mRAW/sRAW that is the Canon way so who cares if the other methods make as much or more sense that is not the Canon. They could easily do. I sure as heck hope they change their mind.
I would much prefer a true crop mode for FL limited shooting. As Skibum5 said, who wants to keep useless border pixels at the storage card level, HD level, or backup level. I certainly don't.
Well I thought that the Canon sensors could not produce a cropped output for some reason. At this point it is a moot point with the limited resolution of the FF sensors. Perhaps that will change, but it will be probably next year.
