7D II

Built in Wifi, GPS and the use of the ios app would be nice additions.
But eventually all models will get this in time,

BrickR wrote in post #15342406
I don't think Canon would put a FF sensor in a 7dii. They love to compartmentalize their segments. No way they would want the 7dii to cut into 5d3 sales. No way. So they'll make it a poor man's 1dx...afterall, that formula worked when they made the 7d a poor man's 1d4

I figure, if the 5d3 is selling for @ $2999 when the 7dii is released, could they really ask $2500 for a crop sensored 7dii? Who am I kidding...Canon sure as hell would! Get as much from the early adopters as possible for as long as possible and then lower the price to what it really should be...To hell with whatever price the other models are selling for!

What's with all this poor mans rubbish. The 7d is the birders choice, simply because canon do not make a higher spec crop camera. If they made a crop censor 1d series we would buy it .

romanv wrote in post #15343830
I dont understand this part, in terms of how it affects the end result/picture.

To me it seems like you're having a conversation about water temperature, and then mentioning that a bigger bucket holds more water. (Which is true, but what's that got to do with how hot the water is?)

If a FF gathers twice as much light, is the image twice as bright? Twice as clear? half the noise? Or what is the benefit of this extra light gathered over a larger area?

(I'm not being facetious, genuine question)

I made a very simple statement, and clarified it more than once.

If you have ample light or can use a long enough exposure such that you can nearly saturate the sensor at base ISO, the bigger sensor will always allow more light to be collected in a single exposure. I said this as an exception to the truth that someone else mentioned that a "crop" sensor without a TC can capture as much light as a larger sensor with a TC, which is true when the camera with the bigger sensor has to use an ISO above base because of the required shutter speed.

Stone 13 wrote in post #15343922
from my limited understanding of sensor tech:

Each larger FF pixel has the ability to collect more light as compared to the smaller pixel of a crop sensor for a given aperture/SS combination.

more light = more photons
more photons = more electrons created which results in a larger available charge that can be collected per pixel by the A/D converter. It results in a higher signal to noise ratio when the image is written. More signal and less noise = better IQ.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong on this

This is true if sensor dimensions scale with pixel dimensions; IOW, the small-pixel sensor and the big-pixel sensor both have the same number of pixels.

If the two sensors are the same size, and one has lots of small pixels, and the other has fewer and bigger pixels, then read noise is likely to be about the same at high ISOs, and the same or much lower in the denser sensor at low ISOs. Photon shot noise is about the same in both sensors.

I imagine it'll come in around the $2200 range, hopefully with a new sensor and dual processors would be nice.

John Sheehy wrote in post #15346834
This is true if sensor dimensions scale with pixel dimensions; IOW, the small-pixel sensor and the big-pixel sensor both have the same number of pixels.

If the two sensors are the same size, and one has lots of small pixels, and the other has fewer and bigger pixels, then read noise is likely to be about the same at high ISOs, and the same or much lower in the denser sensor at low ISOs.

So asumming Identical sensor size and identical electronics, read noise is only reduced in the lower MP sensor because there are fewer pixels to process in the pipeline, therefore less eletrical interference in the signal or have I oversimplified it?

John Sheehy wrote in post #15346834
Photon shot noise is about the same in both sensors.

If I understand it correctly, photon shot noise is an attribute of the light or photons hitting the sensor, only dependent upon the kind of light being captured and its variation calculated by the Poisson distribution. So in a nutshell it can't really factor in the difference between two otherwise identically designed sensors or should I say the identically designed pixels within those sensors. The more I keep reading this stuff, the more interesting it gets.

[QUOTE=Stone 13;15347659]So asumming Identical sensor size and identical electronics, read noise is only reduced in the lower MP sensor because there are fewer pixels to process in the pipeline, therefore less eletrical interference in the signal or have I oversimplified it?[/quit]

Well, there are cases where the biggest pixels give the lowest high-ISO noise per unit of sensor area, like the 1Dx and the D4, but on the basis of area, they aren't that far ahead of the compact Exmor sensors. I wish that DxOMark had a graph choice based on noise per unit of sensor area, in addition to "Screen" and "Print", as a ready rough reference to how sensors perform in this regard. Of course, reading the pixels slowly can reduce readout noises in the pipeline, and having fewer pixels can help here if you want high burst rates. This is why I hope to see EOS bodies with even smaller sensors than the APS-C ones; so that one can get more detail in focal-length-limited situations with smaller pixels instead of TCs, with AF intact, and with file sizes and frame rates that people find acceptable.

If I understand it correctly, photon shot noise is an attribute of the light or photons hitting the sensor, only dependent upon the kind of light being captured and its variation calculated by the Poisson distribution. So in a nutshell it can't really factor in the difference between two otherwise identically designed sensors or should I say the identically designed pixels within those sensors. The more I keep reading this stuff, the more interesting it gets.

Shot noise depends on absolute exposure, sensor size, and quantum efficiency. How the sensor is broken down into pixel density has no major effect in the current range of pixel densities. In a hypothetical sensor with no read noise or thermal noise, and only shot noise, there is no IQ benefit possible with large pixels; just a loss of resolution.

Stone 13 wrote in post #15345575
It can be argued that the current line of rebels have a very slight IQ edge compared to the 7D, not that it's noticeable by anyone but pixel peepers. Canon has made gradual improvements to the 18MP APS-C sensor and those improvements have been enjoyed by all cameras produced after the 7D.

I believe this to be true. I believe even the T2i's sensor was slightly improved over the 7D's sensor, and this has continued.

Stone 13 wrote in post #15345575
The 18MP sensor in the T4i is probably subtly different than the 18MP sensor in the 7D....

Yes, but I suspect in terms of IQ, the T4i took a slight step backward (whether compared to the T3i or what the T4i sensor COULD have been, IDK) due to the space dedicated on the chip for improving the contrast-detect AF.

I spoke to a Canon rep at Best Buy the other day... asked about the 7DII.

He said the 6D was the replacement for the 7D.

Tried to get more out of him, but I couldn't keep a straight face, so I left.

I think it will need to priced around the same as the 6D. People will then be given the choice between the better AF and higher frame rate of the 7D II or the FF goodness of the 6D. I expect both will have the built-in WiFi and GPS. I don't see there being a crop equivalent of 5D III as it's only advantage would be a higher frame rate.

ottacat wrote in post #15353815
I think it will need to priced around the same as the 6D. People will then be given the choice between the better AF and higher frame rate of the 7D II or the FF goodness of the 6D. I expect both will have the built-in WiFi and GPS. I don't see there being a crop equivalent of 5D III as it's only advantage would be a higher frame rate.

That's exactly what i'm thinking as well.

DigitialSoCal --I would leave more of a comment but I have to run out to pick My new 6D (aka 7dMKII) thanks for the heads up

DigitalSoCal wrote in post #15353547
I spoke to a Canon rep at Best Buy the other day... asked about the 7DII.

He said the 6D was the replacement for the 7D.

Tried to get more out of him, but I couldn't keep a straight face, so I left.

If that's the replacement, I hope my 7D lasts a long time.

My guess would be $1900, but when I read someone guess $2200...it didn't seem like it wasn't feasible. Dual card slots, 10fps, dual processors, weather sealed body... I can see Canon asking that at release.

Why do you need dual slots? What is the advantage?