# Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed



## andrewflo (Sep 11, 2014)

Rugged magnesium alloy body
Dust proof
20.2 MP CMOS sensor
Dual-pixel CMOS AF
New 65-point AF, all points cross-type
ITR EOS AF
Continuous shooting: 10 frames per second
Dual DIGIC6
Max ISO: 16,000
RGB+IR new 150,000-pixel metering sensor
Video full HD 60p
Built-in GPS
Interval timer
Bulb timer


http://www.cameraegg.org/beaking-news-canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-image-specs-leaked/

http://photorumors.com/2014/09/11/canon-7d-mark-ii-leaked-picture-and-specs/

http://digicame-info.com/2014/09/eos-7d-mark-ii-18.html [Japanese]


----------



## x-vision (Sep 11, 2014)

Hehe, despite all the secrecy, we still got leaks before the announcement. 
The mandatory image leak appeared too 8). 

I guess announcement day will be Monday ??
Friday seems less likely - unless Canon decides to join Nikon with their D750 announcement.


----------



## x-vision (Sep 11, 2014)

What's with the bulge in front of the hot shoe, btw ??


----------



## Vossie (Sep 11, 2014)

CR seems to lag behind the other rumors sites these days when bringing this type of news.


----------



## andrewflo (Sep 11, 2014)

Vossie said:


> CR seems to lag behind the other rumors sites these days when bringing this type of news.



Agreed but all the links I posted are citing one single Japanese site. Meaning if that Japanese site is incorrect, they're all incorrect.

I like CR's tendency to rank credibility of their stories and the fact that they haven't posted this yet makes me wonder if it is a false alarm.

We'll see


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 11, 2014)

Vossie said:


> CR seems to lag behind the other rumors sites these days when bringing this type of news.



I posted these specs weeks ago......


----------



## whothafunk (Sep 11, 2014)

bring on the "OH NOES, 70D SENSOR!" flamers.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

whothafunk said:


> bring on the "OH NOES, 70D SENSOR!" flamers.



they are all already so bored by canon they don´t care anymore.

lets hope for a "exciting" powershot. :


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

x-vision said:


> What's with the bulge in front of the hot shoe, btw ??



GPS antenna?


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 11, 2014)

the hot shoe looks puzzling


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 11, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Price?



I've been told $1799 give or take $100 between the USA and Canada. I haven't confirmed that though.


----------



## pierlux (Sep 11, 2014)

Specs-wise, max ISO 16000 appears to be the most intriguing to me. What does it mean? Should we expect a nominal base ISO value different than the canonical ISO 100? Maybe around ISO 64? Should this be confirmed, maybe the sensor is actually somewhat different from the 70D's one. What do you guys think?


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 11, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Price?
> ...



that would be absolutely crazy for a 10fps 65AF metal DSLR!


----------



## degies (Sep 11, 2014)

I have been holding back for a 7Dii as backup to my 5D3 but with these specs it hardly seems worth the wait
Looks like Canon Shares the boat with Apple - Not really pushing innovation anymore ? I love my gear, but the other candy stores looks to have much better lollies


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

pierlux said:


> Specs-wise, max ISO 16000 appears to be the most intriguing to me. What does it mean? Should we expect a nominal base ISO value different than the canonical ISO 100? Maybe around ISO 64? Should this be confirmed, maybe the sensor is actually somewhat different from the 70D's one. What do you guys think?



i have no big hope for the sensor anymore.

better DPAF, yes.
better image quality, no.

but maybe they have fixed the shadow noise problems (banding).
that would be nice at least.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 11, 2014)

Is the 70D that much behind the competition in terms if image quality? Is it really hideous compared to say a D7100, K3, Nex A6000 with much lower dynamic range, ISO performance and resolution? 

I don't think so. In all the reviews they seem pretty neck to neck, with canon taking a small lead in noise and the Nikon taking a small lead in resolution. 

This gives comparable image quality to all the industry, in a 10fps, 65 AF points, and all metal body. For the first time, we have a 10fps professional sports body for 1800$! That's definitely something. Nikon users have been dreaming for this camera since they had the D300.


----------



## DiSnapper (Sep 11, 2014)

cant say am excited. 

Have to wait for reviews (user reviews) specially regarding AF and noise performance.


----------



## TrabimanUK (Sep 11, 2014)

Not too fussed about only 20.2 MP, provided that it is a bloody mind blowing 20.2 MP. The 1DX is "only" 18.1MP (ok, full frame is different), but hopefully Canon have squeezed some greatness out of the 70D sensor for the 7DII.

Intriguing about the ISO 16000. Odd, but intriguing - done only because it differentiates it a bit more from the 70D maybe?

Happy that Canon haven't gone for "1 million ISO", as really who needs to shoot at such high levels or in pitch black, and the image quality isn't great to say the least at those levels.

On the face of it, the MKii is not as ground breaking as the original 7D, but lets see how it performs in the real world. 

Theory is one thing, actual operation is another.....


----------



## Vgramatikov (Sep 11, 2014)

There is no banding and much cleaner shadows in 70d. Still far from the Sony sensors ...

Max iso 16000 means more sensitive sensor at least.
This mean improving in sensor and processor capabilities in order to produce better overall sensitivity witch is connected with more dynamic range at least because of the cleaner shadows at low iso settings.

So all this may will be transferred in little better noiso/signal performance. I hope for at least 2/3 better than my 70d at 800-1600 and i hope for better DR and shadow noise at base iso.

Here we may have some hidden spec around the sensor. If not ... it will be only minor improvement in IQ department. Again 10% better IQ nothing ground breaking like base iso performance in Sony sensors.

But for me interesting thing is EOS iTR Autofocus )) this is as 1dx. And with this new AF system it will be best AF module ever in crop sensor camera.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 11, 2014)

"Intervalometer"

now, I'm 99% certain i am not buying another cop body...but...that one makes me smile. canon should have had an Intervalometer before this so that just makes me smile that it's in this, because it will be in other bodies soon. this does sound like a nice body though.


----------



## DootsHK (Sep 11, 2014)

Hi everyone,

I have a question related to the potential availability of the 7D Mark II: “_I expect to see this camera announced on Monday with availability in *late October or early November*_”.

Can you tell me how Canon usually proceeds when launching a new camera? Is the camera available in same time everywhere, or do they proceed step by step, targeting some countries/regions in priority?

Thank you!
Doots


----------



## TrabimanUK (Sep 11, 2014)

Hang on, just re-read the specs and "RGB + IR Photometry Sensor".

Interesting. Shooting sports or wildlife action in IR? Fast-action astronomy shots? At the touch of a button (or menu setting)?

mmmmmm


----------



## pierlux (Sep 11, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > Specs-wise, max ISO 16000 appears to be the most intriguing to me. What does it mean? Should we expect a nominal base ISO value different than the canonical ISO 100? Maybe around ISO 64? Should this be confirmed, maybe the sensor is actually somewhat different from the 70D's one. What do you guys think?
> ...



Actually I'm leaning towards the "approx 1/3 better ISO performance over the 70D" option, but it would be a first... the most probable option is that it's not true at all. Maybe the Japanese site just copied the old CR rumor ;D ;D ;D.

A few more days to dream a new sensor tech, heck, we can dream, can't we? Imagine what would this forum become until the next FF camera announcement, if only this kind of dream comes true...

@ neuro: please, don't bring me back to reality too soon!


----------



## EchoLocation (Sep 11, 2014)

I see no reason why this camera wasn't released two years ago... max, one year ago. 
While this is a nice camera, it is long, long overdue(7D was released in '09.)
It seems Canon is dragging their heels as slowly as possible on releasing technology in new bodies. 
At this point, it's not really so much impressive, as simply.... expected.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

Vgramatikov said:


> There is no banding and much cleaner shadows in 70d. Still far from the Sony sensors ...



there is way less banding i would say. but still some.


----------



## vlim (Sep 11, 2014)

i wonder how much that body will cost in the € zone... 1500 € ?


----------



## Vgramatikov (Sep 11, 2014)

So i`m very interested why everybody means that this is not very exiting camera????
And Canon wait... and something like that.

So please inform me witch company have better crop camera than 7d and 70d???

d7100? With the af module from d300 and 6 RAW images buffer??? Come on?!

This will be real workhorse crop camera. Small 1dx...every body want this from 7d ii. So that is it.

Fast, pro build, new ground breaking af module with 1dx tech, fast processors for response , big buffer and so one.

Alfa and Nikon is far far not as good as cameras . Still the same i think for 70d. 

Yes they have little better sensor at base iso...thats all?! 

If you want WOW go for the brainless sony systems... )) I stay here


----------



## vlim (Sep 11, 2014)

> This will be real workhorse crop camera. Small 1dx...every body want this from 7d ii. So that is it.
> 
> Fast, pro build, new ground breaking af module with 1dx tech, fast processors for response , big buffer and so one.
> 
> ...



I agree, it looks like a very good body for the price, if it's confirmed 8)


----------



## dufflover (Sep 11, 2014)

I'm one of the many who would love (which overtime has turned into cynical bashing lol) to see Canon come out with a new, competitive, latest tech sensor for their crop cameras. Now before the apologists start throwing their usual pre-conceptions, I have owned/used 50D/60D/7D/70D and got an M in the fire sale. There is welcome, improved image quality even if it is a "derived" sensor, and for the most part I love my 70D ... but I make no excuses that I know various parts of the image quality lag the competition even if they don't make/break the photos I take.

With the specs not changing much from the recent rumours I can only echo my previous points over time; the 70D thankfully fixed the gutting debacle of the 60D (AFMA, fps/buffer/write speeds) and for the most part I really like it a lot more than the 7D _overall_ particularly the DPAF and screen, albeit at the cost of buffer depth but it is still reasonable given the Rebels and Nikons. Thus, I do not need a "sporty" 70D particularly one that removes the flippy touch screen I've found very useful for low angle shooting! I'm not disappointed because "OMG they didn't make a perfect camera for me", but rather *if* it's same sensor, exact or just tweaked, it means they still haven't released anything on say a new fab process, or general design (like more onchip like Sony), etc.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

Vgramatikov said:


> So i`m very interested why everybody means that this is not very exiting camera????
> And Canon wait... and something like that.
> 
> So please inform me witch company have better crop camera than 7d and 70d???
> ...



different needs.

some will sure like the better AF and build qulity.
for others that are not important features i guess.

for me the 7D Mk2 never was a camera i was going to buy.
i was only interest in it because i want to see where canon is going with it´s sensor development and video features.


----------



## benperrin (Sep 11, 2014)

Looks good. Can't wait to see some sample images.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 11, 2014)

It's very strange to me this is not exciting people. This is the highest-speced camera in the market and the highest-end crop body ever made.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> It's very strange to me this is not exciting people. This is the highest-speced camera in the market and the highest-end crop body ever made.



the samsung NX1 has better specs if true.



> - 28 MP APS-C CMOS Sensor (ISOCELL tech)
> - DRIMe Image Signal Processor
> - ISO 100-51200
> - 15 fps with tracking.
> ...


----------



## Khufu (Sep 11, 2014)

Nothing's getting in the way of that mode dial going aaaall the way 'round...


----------



## KT (Sep 11, 2014)

So the EOS-1D X top plate and body style is gone, but at least we got Canon's premiere AF system, 10 FPS and dual digic 6 at a reasonable price. On balance, it's a good deal if you are in the market for an APS-C body and wasn't convinced by the 70D specs. The not so good news is that you get the same 20.2 MP sensor which isn't a whole lot better than the original 7D 18 MP sensor. This camera will have a tough time competing with the current crop APS-C bodies from Sony/Nikon because of its perceived sensor limitations.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 11, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > It's very strange to me this is not exciting people. This is the highest-speced camera in the market and the highest-end crop body ever made.
> ...



Samsung will lack in the AF deparment, compared to 7D2. 65 Xtype PDAF sensors with dedicated RGB tracking sensor will surely kick ass


----------



## JoeDavid (Sep 11, 2014)

From a video perspective, one thing that the 70D does quite well will be unavailable on the 7DM2 if it doesn't have the touch screen. That is the ability to "pull focus" by touching a different point on the LCD. It is very useful and the 70D does it at about the right speed and with no focus hunting. Maybe the spec is wrong about the touch screen but, if not, I may opt for a 70D instead. I don't do a lot of video but that feature coupled with the dual-pixel focus is very good to have.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

Khalai said:


> Samsung will lack in the AF deparment, compared to 7D2. 65 Xtype PDAF sensors with dedicated RGB tracking sensor will surely kick ass



i guess so.

but overall specs still "look" better.
maybe there will really be a "revolutionary" new PD system.


----------



## tayassu (Sep 11, 2014)

Damn it, that camera looks really good! 
I have a little bit of a fuss with the AF of my 7D, maybe I'll pull the trigger... :


----------



## vlim (Sep 11, 2014)

> the samsung NX1 has better specs if true.



may be but not the number and quality of lenses we have with Canon


----------



## EchoLocation (Sep 11, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> It's very strange to me this is not exciting people. This is the highest-speced camera in the market and the highest-end crop body ever made.


a.this camera was very exciting to me..... at the last photokina in 2012(when I was expecting a refresh of the 7D) b. crop sensor bodies have gone from a low cost alternative to full frame to a tool people use to get more reach. A large majority of the market for this camera is now on the FF bandwagon.
c. why did it take five years to release a follow up to the original 7D?


----------



## Khufu (Sep 11, 2014)

I think at this point in time people are still going to have a lot of the rumoured specs in mind and accepting the final product might feel sort of like "settling" and anticlimactic until those ideals fade. 
Here's a fun game, and feel free to add to the list or make corrections; what apparently hasn't the 7D got that people sort of maybe expected?!

* 1D Style Top Plate
* Built In Grip/Mini 1DX
* WiFi
* Higher Resolution Sensor
* Foveon/5-Layer IR-to-UV Sensor
* Touch-screen
* 12 (14?) FPS
* APS-H Sensor

I can see why, right now, people's spirits are dampened - but people were the same over the announcement of the 5D3 with its incremental rise in pixel count and that bitchery all melted away soon enough 

Still, I'm not looking at buying a 7D2 - The 70D with its flippy-floppy touch screen and WiFi is way more my kinda' camera


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

vlim said:


> > the samsung NX1 has better specs if true.
> 
> 
> 
> may be but not the number and quality of lenses we have with Canon



that´s correct and i have expected that argument. 
but then we talked only about body specs, not systems. 

the lens collection upvalues any canon body... canon can be happy about that.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

Khufu said:


> I think at this point in time people are still going to have a lot of the rumoured specs in mind and accepting the final product might feel sort of like "settling" and anticlimactic until those ideals fade.
> Here's a fun game, and feel free to add to the list or make corrections; what apparently hasn't the 7D got that people sort of maybe expected?!
> 
> * 1D Style Top Plate
> ...



* best video DSLR EVER!


----------



## Eldar (Sep 11, 2014)

I am sure I´ll get one. The announced AF system and 10 fps sounds very good as an add-on to the 1DX for birding and wildlife. The sensor quality will probably be OK for me. I am much more concerned with the next full frame sensor. Considering how long it´s been since Nikon released their D800, a 5DIII/1DX replacement should be something extraordinary.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 11, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> they are all already so bored by canon they don´t care anymore.



And yet - here you are...


----------



## thepancakeman (Sep 11, 2014)

There's got to be more than meets the eye, because as others have said, there is nothing obvious here to cause the delay in bringing this to market. Still, without WiFi, I'm probably going to look at alternatives.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 11, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> but maybe they have fixed the shadow noise problems (banding).



They fixed _that_ with the 70D sensor.


----------



## Stuart (Sep 11, 2014)

AA filter on sensor?


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> ULFULFSEN said:
> 
> 
> > they are all already so bored by canon they don´t care anymore.
> ...



yeah i am here so are you. so what troll?
stop you personal trolling and stay on topic for once. :


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 11, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> Is the 70D that much behind the competition in terms if image quality? Is it really hideous compared to say a D7100, K3, Nex A6000 with much lower dynamic range, ISO performance and resolution?



No, it's really not - the 70D's is an excellent sensor, and one capable of superb image quality across the range. 

The trolls don't care about that, though - never let demonstrable truths get in the way of trolling.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > Is the 70D that much behind the competition in terms if image quality? Is it really hideous compared to say a D7100, K3, Nex A6000 with much lower dynamic range, ISO performance and resolution?
> ...



it has a 68 DXO score while 90% of the other APS-C sensors beat that (even m43 sensors) i hardly call that excellent. 

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Canon/EOS-70D

but maybe fanboys ignore that.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 11, 2014)

So I guess they decided not to take video seriously then.....disappointing.


----------



## simongking (Sep 11, 2014)

Personally I like the look of the specifications, the only thing you can't determine is how good the IQ is in low light until you see some examples. I have 2 x 5D3's which I love but hope that this camera can give me the sustained FPS, IQ and extra reach that I need for sports work.

I will be pre-ordering this and hopefully will get one asap. Also I am kind of hoping that the price is around the £1500 mark or lower.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 11, 2014)

No mention of max shutter. Assume it is 1/8000?

No mention of flash sync speed. Assume it is 1/250th? Any possibility it could be a bit higher? 1/320th?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

KT said:


> This camera will have a tough time competing with the current crop APS-C bodies from Sony/Nikon because of its perceived sensor limitations.



LOL. : : :


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 11, 2014)

DiSnapper said:


> cant say am excited. Have to wait for reviews (user reviews) specially regarding AF and noise performance.



Real world reviews are most important, but why are people only concentrating on the fps and af system?

The _new rgb+ir(!) metering system_ is a biggie. If this results in a less dodgy metering, this means you can ettr more safely and thus use more of the theoretical dynamic range in real life. If the 7d2 has a good vf, it will be a stellar wildlife and sports camera that covers 90% of purposes.



Tugela said:


> So I guess they decided not to take video seriously then.....disappointing.



Jippee, for once they took a good decision :-> ... if you want 4k video and a high dynamic range, a crop sensor won't do it anyway - so they probably moved these features to the 5d4.



ScottyP said:


> No mention of flash sync speed. Assume it is 1/250th? Any possibility it could be a bit higher? 1/320th?



Most likely, Canon won't try to have better specs on a crop than on their premium ff system if they can help it. Flash x-sync mostly matters to studio settings with ff cameras, otherwise you can use hss even with it's drawbacks.


----------



## trstromme (Sep 11, 2014)

thepancakeman said:


> There's got to be more than meets the eye, because as others have said, there is nothing obvious here to cause the delay in bringing this to market. Still, without WiFi, I'm probably going to look at alternatives.



I'm finding this pervasive notion that the 7D update is delayed rather bewildering. Updates to bodies which are incremental and small, in much the same ways that smartphones get incremental and frequent updates is that really the way we want it? (At least to me this is a lot of how Nikon/Sony (canon in the low end) are playing the game, lots of resources in pushing out a staggering number of models, with tiny changes among generations..)
A delay is purely in our minds, Canon did not to my knowledge publish a roadmap. 
What I'm thinking is, with the relatively minor updates each new generation get, unless there is a huge ground breaker what's the point? The megapixel wars are over, the video DSLR wars will probably settle soon, things have reached a plateau where the quality generally available is sufficient for the wast majority of users and applications.
Can what we're seeing now be a sign of a return to the pre-DSLR days, where high(er) end bodies were released on much longer schedules? Possibly with firmware updates down the line being planned to enable buried or not ready features? (Canon DPAF for the CXXX series, the huge 2.x update for the 7D and the 5D mkII)

Yes I could obviously have wanted a bit better ISO/noise performance from my current 7D, slightly sharper) But for the majority of my stuff at least, no, not any real desire for a different camera, nor am I faced with an inability to shoot because of any shortcomings or perception that other brands perform much better.

So yes I'd rather take longer cycles, with more substantial updates, that keeps the value of my gear in the 2nd. hand market instead of a constant trickle of small updates.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Jippee, for once they took a good decision :-> ... if you want 4k video and a high dynamic range, a crop sensor won't do it anyway - so they probably moved these features to the 5d4.



the GH4 user beg to differ...

when m43 sensors can offer great quality canon should be able to do it with an APS-C sensor?

http://nofilmschool.com/2014/05/4k-camera-test-panasonic-gh4-red-epic-mx


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 11, 2014)

Annoyingly I am now starting to consider this to regain some 'reach', over purchasing a longer (and very expensive) lens to meet my requirements. 

This is a cost and weight driven consideration, but the image quality in comparison to full frame will make or break the deal because that was the reason I got rid of my 7D in the first place.

Question on one of the specs listed: what is "Lens electronic MF"


----------



## Woody (Sep 11, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> for me the 7D Mk2 never was a camera i was going to buy.
> i was only interest in it because i want to see where canon is going with it´s sensor development and video features.



+1 

This body is going to weigh as much as the original 7D with the same old same old 70D sensor.


----------



## TrabimanUK (Sep 11, 2014)

simongking said:


> I will be pre-ordering this and hopefully will get one asap. Also I am kind of hoping that the price is around the £1500 mark or lower.



I doubt it - it was around, if not more than that for the original and that was 5 years ago. I'd expect it closer in price to the 5DIII, circa £2000, which would go with th current pricing structure of take the US$ price, swap the currency symbol and add at least 20%


----------



## vlim (Sep 11, 2014)

> the samsung NX1 has better specs if true.





> may be but not the number and quality of lenses we have with Canon





> that´s correct and i have expected that argument.
> but then we talked only about body specs, not systems.
> 
> the lens collection upvalues any canon body... canon can be happy about that.


 
;D


----------



## brad-man (Sep 11, 2014)

Very nice specs indeed, though it's hard to argue with those that feel it should have been released sooner. Now it comes down to the quality of the files. I was really hoping they would include built-in RT functionality.


----------



## simongking (Sep 11, 2014)

TrabimanUK said:


> simongking said:
> 
> 
> > I will be pre-ordering this and hopefully will get one asap. Also I am kind of hoping that the price is around the £1500 mark or lower.
> ...



I paid £1250 for the original 7D when it came out so looking at a £250 increase for that. If the rumoured $$$ price is $1799 as per previous post then £1500 shouldn't be too far adrift.


----------



## Quackator (Sep 11, 2014)

IF RGB + IR does not refer to metering but the image sensor,
THEN this is the most interesting camera of the last 15 years.

I think I need one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Question on one of the specs listed: what is "Lens electronic MF"



A setting that allows you to turn off manual focus on the small handful of lenses that use electronic MF (aka focus by wire) – currently that's the 85L II and the STM lenses, but also includes some pre-IS supertele lenses and a couple others.


----------



## dolina (Sep 11, 2014)

Wahhhhh no WiFi.


----------



## weixing (Sep 11, 2014)

Hi,


Quackator said:


> IF RGB + IR does not refer to metering but the image sensor,
> THEN this is the most interesting camera of the last 15 years.
> 
> I think I need one.


 Yes... very interesting if mean the imaging sensor... does it mean can took IR image without mod the camera?? If so... very interesting indeed....

Have a nice day.


----------



## TrabimanUK (Sep 11, 2014)

simongking said:


> TrabimanUK said:
> 
> 
> > simongking said:
> ...



Wow! You got a good price! Fair enough. If it is circa £1500, it might just sway me into getting one sooner.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 11, 2014)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> Quackator said:
> ...



Count me as another that finds this to be a very interesting feature, if it is the image sensor.

Overall, this sounds like a potentially excellent camera. But, we should wait and see if there is new technology especially sensor tech. You can only tell so much by a spec list.


----------



## weixing (Sep 11, 2014)

docsmith said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...


Hi,
Look like it's the metering sensor...  
Hmm... just wonder why metering sensor need to detect IR?? Meter subject that give out heat??

Have a nice day.


----------



## xps (Sep 11, 2014)

There are some questions that will be answered in a few days(Price, sync time,...).

I expect DPreview to bring out an pre-test with some test shots a few days after announcing. 
And then let us wait how good test magazines and *YOU* will tell us how good it is - and if it is worth buying.
The AF system & AF @ F8 is pleasing, but who knows how consistent the whole body works and how improved the Sensor is.

The specs alone are only in some point exiting. But let us see how it performs in pratical use.

I personally expected an new sensor. And I will see if Canon meets the coming products from Sony and so on in 2015. The rumors expect faster (AF&fps) bodies and new lenses... And what do i expect? An really good and evolved 5DIV


----------



## Northstar (Sep 11, 2014)

These specs looks pretty nice to me...especially at $1800. 

In good lighting conditions, this camera should perform on par with a 1dx.


----------



## zenja27 (Sep 11, 2014)

weixing said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > weixing said:
> ...



http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/06/patent-canon-5-layer-uv-ir-rgb-sensor/
Maybe this one? :-\


----------



## xps (Sep 11, 2014)

Northstar said:


> These specs looks pretty nice to me...especially at $1800.
> 
> In good lighting conditions, this camera should perform on par with a 1dx.



I hope you are right @1800$...

Cameraegg rumored 2199....


----------



## Roo (Sep 11, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > It's very strange to me this is not exciting people. This is the highest-speced camera in the market and the highest-end crop body ever made.
> ...



Reminds me of a P&S I once bought that promised 10 fps, pity it ran out of buffer after 3 shots (small jpg) and turned whites into pinks. Horrible camera that sounded good on paper but not in reality. At least I know Canon generally delivers on it specs.


----------



## DiSnapper (Sep 11, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> DiSnapper said:
> 
> 
> > cant say am excited. Have to wait for reviews (user reviews) specially regarding AF and noise performance.
> ...



I will be using for Birds/Wildlife (80-20) and sports. Reason for my worry is my current 7D, its AF and noise performance are not as good as 500D. I want to upgrade, but dont want do that in haste, just like what I did with 7Ds purchase.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Question on one of the specs listed: what is "Lens electronic MF"
> ...



Thanks, Neuro


----------



## zim (Sep 11, 2014)

EOS iTR Autofocus and RGB + IR Photometry Sensor has got my attention.

Wonder if the iTR Autofocus is straight out of the 1Dx or it's an increment. Would/will spot metering be linked to it?

Surprised that the 65pnt AF has been confirmed was expecting 41pnt, nice.

What's not to like, looks like a great camera (ducks) my only gripe would be new grip, hardly surprising though.

Regards


----------



## whothafunk (Sep 11, 2014)

vlim said:


> i wonder how much that body will cost in the € zone... 1500 € ?


Hahaha! That's a good one. Usually it's converted $=€, and if its $1800 in the US, its gonna be at least €1800, which is approx. $2330. It always was and it always will be like that.


----------



## MR. CRYPY (Sep 11, 2014)

x-vision said:


> What's with the bulge in front of the hot shoe, btw ??



GPS


----------



## MR. CRYPY (Sep 11, 2014)

whothafunk said:


> bring on the "OH NOES, 70D SENSOR!" flamers.



NOP, same MP count, but brand new tech


----------



## Quackator (Sep 11, 2014)

Let's hope for Wifi in a dongle like the 1-Dx hast, or in a grip
like some models before, and NOT in a brick like for the 5D Mk3.


----------



## suburbia (Sep 11, 2014)

weixing said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > weixing said:
> ...



Metering using IR creates more accurate colour tones especially animal skin apparently. Useful for wildlife photography?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 11, 2014)

Sounds like a nice camera. I hope that Canon sells a lot of them

I am sure that pretty much any photographer would be able to take some nice photographs with this camera.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 11, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> ...



Yes I ignore these numbers and judge image quality based on, well, images. What's the best APS-C sensor on the market right now? Sony's 24Mps sensor inside the D7100, D5300, A6000, etc? You, people of the internet, seem to claim it's significantly higher in resolution that it dwarfs the 70Ds resolution, and various stops cleaner at high ISOs, and various stops higher in dynamic range. DxO numbers claim it's 30-40% better than the 70D and this is the source of these claims.

Here look at how the situation is in real life: D7100 vs 70D. This is an objective test and for you to make your own judgment. 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-70d/16

Can you see a resolution difference or more information the 70D is failing to capture? I don't. They seem pretty identical to me, perhaps with a negligble edge going to the Nikon as it's 4 more million pixels but a negligible edge to the Canon in resolving aliasing and moire. 

Here let's look at high ISO performance compared to the mighty Sony sensor:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_70D/RAW_noise.shtml

Do you see a difference in noise performance? I don't. Both look pretty identical to me. At least not various stops ahead of the Canon as they claim. 

Here another image quality comparison:

http://www.clubulfoto.com/canon-70d-vs-nikon-d7100-testul-iso/


_______

Both Canon's 20.2MP sensor and Sony's 24MP produce excellent results. Both are top technology and both are indistinguishable in real-life results. We are talking less than thirds of stops differences here, these cameras produce similar results, period. The rest is up to you as a photographer and many other factors affect the IQ like AF, lenses, shutter, subject, lighting, etc. If you can't produce a good image with either these sensors then something's wrong with your skill. They're in the same ballpark. so even of the 7D mk II has the exact same image quality as the 70D, it's still very relevant and comparable to the competition in terms of image quality, and that's not confirmed as the 7D might have an entirely new sensor with entirely different characteristics. 

Here Canon is giving you a camera that has image quality comparable to the best on the APS-C market, with 10 frames per second as the 1D mk4, and 65 point AF system (better than the 1D mk 4), ridiculously tough weather-sealed body, innovative Dual pixel AF, and all the bells and whistles, for less than 2000$. And we complain. 

We are complaining about the specifications of the highest specd camera on the market.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

i know all these reviews. 

and i don´t say canon cameras make bad images.
but the sensor is hardly "excellent".

a lamborghini v12 aventador or rollce royce motor is maybe excellent, but not a 1.6l VW golf motor. every car company can build such a motor.



> Excellence is a talent or quality which is unusually good and so surpasses ordinary standards.


----------



## Stuart (Sep 11, 2014)

Could the IR sensor be for focusing in the dark?

is the extra 3200 from 12800 to give 16000 really just a third of a stop improvement?


----------



## Canon1 (Sep 11, 2014)

degies said:


> I have been holding back for a 7Dii as backup to my 5D3 but with these specs it hardly seems worth the wait
> Looks like Canon Shares the boat with Apple - Not really pushing innovation anymore ? I love my gear, but the other candy stores looks to have much better lollies



Unfortunately the other "lollies" don't mount to "L" lenses... Personally, I think that these specs look awesome for a crop camera. I'll be adding one to the pair of 5D3's I already have. I considered the 70D, but the slow (relatively) FPS and the slightly crippled feature set kept me away. This new 7DII will likely have the same user programmable menu system as the 5D3 (maybe even better) along with the AF system to match or beat the stellar 5D3... sounds like a winner to me.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 11, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> ...



The Nikon D5300 has a higher score then Hasselblad medium format digital cameras. Those stupid Hasselblad fanboys spend tens of thousands of dollars ignoring this ;D ;D ;D 

While you ponder DxO's obvious screw up, you might want to read this: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52959322


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 11, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:
 

> i know all these reviews.
> 
> and i don´t say canon cameras make bad images.
> but the sensor is hardly "excellent".
> ...






ULFULFSEN said:


> i know all these reviews.
> 
> and i don´t say canon cameras make bad images.
> but the sensor is hardly "excellent".
> ...



Fair enough. Lets not call it excellent. I am just really puzzled by the information that's extremely common now that the 70D's sensor is bad, or inferior in image quality to any other APS-C sensors. Yet I am yet to see any images that prove any sensor has an image quality advantage, either in resolution, high ISO noise, or ability to recover shadows/highlights. 

I actually really want to know, what's horribly wrong with the 70D sensor compared to the current APS-C technology? 

I understand for example the the resolution difference between Sony's full frame 36mp sensor in the D810 and Canon's FF in the 5D mk III, yes that's a difference, a noticeable one. I am quite jealous of that sensor in terms of resolution, but I am not jealous of any APS-C sensor as a 70D user.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 11, 2014)

There could be details here. I'll give an example.

In the 70D, you can switch to 3x crop mode in video, but only through a menu and when you do you lose dual pixel autofocus. If this camera can smoothly shift between 1x and 3x while shooting and retain dual pixel focus that would be a substantial upgrade to me versus the 70D.


----------



## alistairm1 (Sep 11, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> i know all these reviews.
> 
> and i don´t say canon cameras make bad images.
> but the sensor is hardly "excellent".
> ...



I really don't follow the argument. Are you saying you expect (in motoring terms) the speed and power of a Lamborghini and the refinement of a Rolls Royce for the price of a Lexus (or VW)?
That is never going to happen in any market, be it motoring, photography or anything else.
Or is it just that you don't see this as being excellent because other cameras have a better DXoMark score?
I have noticed that when people provide real-world examples to show the differences are minute, you still trot out the DXoMark argument, as if their opinion trumps anything else.

When I buy any new technology item, I research the internet to see what users think of the device I am looking for. I will then form my opinion based on those opinions, not on some comparative value which seems to be based on a hidden calculation.

If the new camera is capable of producing images which are of sufficient quality to suit my needs then I'll probably buy it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> I actually really want to know, what's horribly wrong with the 70D sensor compared to the current APS-C technology?



It's horrible because it's made by Canon. Any DRone will tell you that all Canon sensors are horrible. I know you think comparing actual pictures is a way to learn something about these cameras, sorry to tell you it's not. All that matters is what DxOMark says about the sensor. Actually, that's not quite true. The pictures you take with the lens cap on followed by a five-stop exposure push…those pictures matter.

:


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> ULFULFSEN said:
> 
> 
> > Keith_Reeder said:
> ...



MF sensors are not that good because their techology is so much better, they are better because of their size.

so i don´t wonder that a normalized MF sensor does not top the DXO charts.


----------



## zim (Sep 11, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> There could be details here. I'll give an example.
> 
> In the 70D, you can switch to 3x crop mode in video, but only through a menu and when you do you lose dual pixel autofocus. If this camera can smoothly shift between 1x and 3x while shooting and retain dual pixel focus that would be a substantial upgrade to me versus the 70D.



+1 the devil is always in the detail, looking forward to detailed reviews


----------



## Hillsilly (Sep 11, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> "Intervalometer"
> 
> now, I'm 99% certain i am not buying another cop body...but...that one makes me smile. canon should have had an Intervalometer before this so that just makes me smile that it's in this, because it will be in other bodies soon. this does sound like a nice body though.



Agree 100%+++ 

Just hope it allows you to keep the shutter open for more than 30s.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 11, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> Yet I am yet to see any images that prove any sensor has an image quality advantage, either in resolution, high ISO noise, or ability to recover shadows/highlights.



I wouldn't hold my breath on that one ;D The DRones and DxOnes aren't capable of producing such comparisons.



> I actually really want to know, what's horribly wrong with the 70D sensor compared to the current APS-C technology?



Nothing.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

alistairm1 said:


> ULFULFSEN said:
> 
> 
> > i know all these reviews.
> ...



i say what i wrote: excellence is a talent or quality which is unusually good and so *surpasses ordinary* standards. 

and sony shows that you don´t have to spend a fortune for a sensor that is surpassing ordinary standards.


----------



## bowtiez (Sep 11, 2014)

Hmm, interesting. Let's see how this camera really performs. The intervalometer is something long overdue.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 11, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> MF sensors are not that good because their techology is so much better, they are better because of their size.
> 
> so i don´t wonder that a normalized MF sensor does not top the DXO charts.



Oh boy : 

Reading DRone posts is like listening to a 12yo boy discuss what it must be like to drive a Ferrari.

Did you read the link? Oh wait...that would be an obvious no. Maybe you should?


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > I actually really want to know, what's horribly wrong with the 70D sensor compared to the current APS-C technology?
> ...



If the 7D2 doesn't improve lens cap test shots then I am going to Nikon. That's it!!! ;D


----------



## simongking (Sep 11, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> ULFULFSEN said:
> 
> 
> > Keith_Reeder said:
> ...



I'm not complaining I'm just waiting for it to be in the shops or at least pre-orderable


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> ULFULFSEN said:
> 
> 
> > MF sensors are not that good because their techology is so much better, they are better because of their size.
> ...



So what, i should use DPP instead or LR and that fixes everything?

Sure that sounds like a great idea.
But having used DPP for years beside LR it never gave me the WOW effect like processing a Sony EXMOR file.

People like the EXMOR sensors because they actually see a difference.


----------



## sgs8r (Sep 11, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> It's very strange to me this is not exciting people. This is the highest-speced camera in the market and the highest-end crop body ever made.



If you don't already own a DSLR, particularly a crop-sensor, this is a pretty nice camera. But speaking as a 7D owner, I'm a bit underwhelmed after 5 years. 5 Years is a long time for what is basically a piece of consumer electronics. With most other products, we would expect a pretty big leap in this time (long enough that some products have almost come and gone, e.g. BluRay players). For most purposes, my 7D is fine, particularly when I can de-focus/re-focus a few times to give the AF a few tries to get it right (or use live-view). But as someone who shoots a lot in ISO-challenged circumstances (sports at night, evening weddings with existing light), along with better AF, I was hoping for another stop or more of usable ISO. Without that, they could have brought out this model 2.5 years ago with the 5D3 AF. Now I wonder if I should just buy the 2.5 year-old 5D3 (1DX isn't practical, particularly when you include the cost of the divorce).

I think this slow pace of innovation reflects the capture effect of a lens collection. Once you have a sizable lens collection, it's not really feasible to sell everything and re-buy another brand with it's own set of shortcomings. (I'd be interested in hearing from people who have done this and what the total $ cost was to switch.) So we just take what Canon gives us, letting them make us their bitch :-\. 

Granted, for the vast majority of uses and users (most of whom are still shooting in P), the current technology is pretty great and beyond what most people take advantage of. It is only a tiny minority of us that are whining. In fact, if you believe Reichmann over at LuLa (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras/the_mirrorless_revolution.shtml), in 5 years, the masses will have switched to mirrorless, small-sensor cameras, and we will be left behind like MF, paying more and more for glacial innovation. Well, "in the long run, we are all dead." In the meantime, I guess I'll just make some more pictures and focus on the majority of situations where it's not my camera that's holding me back. (Still thinking about that 5D3, though...)


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 11, 2014)

sgs8r said:


> But speaking as a 7D owner, I'm a bit underwhelmed after 5 years. 5 Years is a long time for what is basically a piece of consumer electronics. With most other products, we would expect a pretty big leap in this time (long enough that some products have almost come and gone, e.g. BluRay players).



I doubt Moore's law will continue to apply in photography as there's a "good enough" point just like computer power for word processing. Canon have an ace upon their sleeve with the dual pixel af, and adding more computing power will make better in-camera processing available like the 1dx' face recognition. But in terms of phase af and sensor, 5 years isn't that long to expect revolutionary changes anymore in the old-school dslr segment.



bowtiez said:


> Hmm, interesting. Let's see how this camera really performs.



On the other hand, let's better start discussing about the famed 5d4 and 7d3 models right after the 7d2 release, there's got to be an excuse why my shots aren't what I'd like them to be :->


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

sgs8r said:


> In fact, if you believe Reichmann over at LuLa, in 5 years, the masses will have switched to mirrorless, small-sensor cameras...



I remember the prediction that with the rise of mirrorless cameras, the dSLR would be dead in 5 years. That was 6 years ago.......


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> sgs8r said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, if you believe Reichmann over at LuLa, in 5 years, the masses will have switched to mirrorless, small-sensor cameras...
> ...



maybe they thought canon and nikon would not show such big inertia and jump on the waggon.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 11, 2014)

I still want to know how it will sync time between cameras without WiFi.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 11, 2014)

Sweetness. This will be the semi-pro sport cam for the next 4 years like the 7D before it. 

20mp.
65 point all cross type AF.
10 FPS.

I was close enough to predicting those specs. Chalk this one up canon, you've got it right.


----------



## Canon1 (Sep 11, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Price?
> ...



If this price were accurate it would make sense that we are not expecting to see a revolutionary sensor. I look at this rumored retail price as a great indicator of this. If it is going to be $3k I would expect to be blown away. At $1800 it fits this spec list well.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 11, 2014)

Looks very promising for good light situations where I want more pixels on target. Coin toss whether I get one (based on asking price).


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 11, 2014)

There is still hope that despite the same pixel count, has new technology for better picture quality than 70D. :


----------



## Tanispyre (Sep 11, 2014)

x-vision said:


> What's with the bulge in front of the hot shoe, btw ??



I am pretty sure it is the GPS antenna


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 11, 2014)

Tanispyre said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > What's with the bulge in front of the hot shoe, btw ??
> ...



If they can put a GPS antenna on the outside, why not a WiFi antenna? The frequencies aren't far apart.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 11, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> If they can put a GPS antenna on the outside, why not a WiFi antenna? The frequencies aren't far apart.



Wifi most likely works from inside the camera just fine for the ranges that are most likely to be used. An electronic compass for gps position (i.e. compute what the camera was pointed at and what angle was covered) seems to need an outside position, that's probably why the 6d doesn't have it.



neuroanatomist said:


> I remember the prediction that with the rise of mirrorless cameras, the dSLR would be dead in 5 years. That was 6 years ago.......



As long as there will be old-school photos with money around who request it, dslrs will be around, too. The question is where the innovations happen, and advanced image processing needs the processor to see the image all the time (i.e. mirrorless). I'm actually really surprised the face detection on the 1dx seem to work with the legacy tech.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Tanispyre said:
> 
> 
> > x-vision said:
> ...



it´s not a how it´s a why question.

canon did not want WIFI in the 7D MK2 for some strange reasons.


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 11, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Tanispyre said:
> 
> 
> > x-vision said:
> ...



My guess (and it's nothing more than an educated such) is that GPS is a passive receiver, and it won't need to draw much juice from the battery. Any built-in WiFi would need to have electronics for both receiving and sending data, and it would suck out the available juice much quicker.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Tanispyre said:
> ...



the 6D has wifi and gps.
make it a press of a button to disable wifi.

if you need it you will live with the power consumption, if you don´t disable it and it will not hurt.


----------



## Tanispyre (Sep 11, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Question on one of the specs listed: what is "Lens electronic MF"



Lens Electronic MF means you can change the focus using the camera body and the AF motors, instead of switching to MF mode on the lens, and turning a ring


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 11, 2014)

I'm not in the market to buy one, but I certainly look forward to see the real deal being handled and mistreated in a few reviews soon. Spec's is one thing, now they'll have to deliver also. (And I think it will.)

Still hoping that the earlier mentioned SD card slot is a mistake, and that it'll be CF only.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Tanispyre said:
> ...



My guess is Canon wants to sell you the WFT-E7 II. 




Lee Jay said:


> I still want to know how it will sync time between cameras without WiFi.



The same way...buy the WFT-E7 II. I wish I could say I'm being facetious, but unfortunately I'm not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

Tanispyre said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Question on one of the specs listed: what is "Lens electronic MF"
> ...



What makes you believe that? That's not how the setting by that same name works on the 1D X and 5DIII (where it works as I previously described).


----------



## lintoni (Sep 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> DominoDude said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


Buy 2x WFT-E7 IIs!


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 11, 2014)

If $1799 is fairly accurate, then game on. Yes it's 20.2 MP sensor. Same pixel count as 70D, but wasn't it said before that it is NOT the same sensor as the 70D? So we don't know squat yet. The RGB+IR is very intriguing. The 65AF + 10fps... awesome. Love it. By the way... the last 7D sensor has 18.1 MP and two Digic 4s. Dual Digic 6 processors could well translate into significantly cleaner high ISO images even if they stuck the same old sensor in there.

If this camera comes out at $2500 like folks initially assumed, it's far less exciting to me and probably most folks. I'm looking forward to the official announcement and some side by side to old 7D (which I own). I don't care what Samsung and Sony have. They have a sensor. Canon makes Cameras. And Lenses. This system in my opinion and for my uses is vastly superior to other options. I'm looking forward to this.


----------



## Tanispyre (Sep 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tanispyre said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...



It was something I had read on a DP forum, as a way of doing focus pulls in video, and it made sense to me. Honestly, I have not used a 1D X or a 5D III so I admit I am probably regurgitating wrong info. But that is part of the fun of these forums.


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 11, 2014)

Neuro & Lintoni - Yupp, I can't object to that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

Tanispyre said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tanispyre said:
> ...



I agree that it would be a nice feature. But this isn't it.


----------



## Barrfly (Sep 11, 2014)

Intervalometer

Hopefully existing Canon cameras will get this through a firmware update. Magic Lantern has already added the feature to my 5D III but it would be nice to access it without using third party hacks .


----------



## unfocused (Sep 11, 2014)

sgs8r said:


> ...as someone who shoots a lot in ISO-challenged circumstances (sports at night, evening weddings with existing light), along with better AF, I was hoping for another stop or more of usable ISO... Now I wonder if I should just buy the 2.5 year-old 5D3



Nicely played, Canon. 

The 7DII was never going to be a low light king or competitor to the 5DIII in ISO performance. It's not possible with a APS-C sensor to achieve the same performance as a full frame sensor. It will be slightly better than the 7D and better than any of the 24mp competitors, but it's not going to gain you a full stop or more. 

So, yeah, you need to buy a 5DIII. 



Marsu42 said:


> I doubt Moore's law will continue to apply in photography as there's a "good enough" point just like computer power for word processing.



Yes! Someone else gets it. 

Beyond a certain point, miniscule differences in sensors aren't going to sell cameras. But, 10 fps, 65 autofocus points, GPS, weather resistance, intervalometers, etc. will.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 11, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Beyond a certain point, miniscule differences in sensors aren't going to sell cameras. But, 10 fps, 65 autofocus points, GPS, weather resistance, intervalometers, etc. will.



More than tiny differences are available. The A7S sensor has a 1/3 stop advantage in QE and around 1 1/2 stops in read noise at high ISO. That's not "miniscule".


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 11, 2014)

sgs8r said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > It's very strange to me this is not exciting people. This is the highest-speced camera in the market and the highest-end crop body ever made.
> ...



then what were actually people expecting from the 7D replacement? What would it take to be exciting? More than 10 frames-per-secons, perhaps more the the 1DX? A better AF system than the 1DX? A stop or two of ISO performance, again making it better in low-light than the fullframe 1DX? 

It went and became the fastest, most advanced, toughest crop sensor camera ever made. It's ridiculously highly speced. It improves on every single feature of the 7D by a great margin. 

It's just really shocking how such ridiculously high specs are still bashed and considered disappointing. This makes me believe that some people really do bash a company for the sake of bashing a company. (Not meaning the person I qouted here, he has legitemate need and concern for higher IQ)

No other camera on the market under 7000$ does what this camera does, not by any manufacturer, it seems very strange it's still disappointing people.


----------



## lintoni (Sep 11, 2014)

Barrfly said:


> Intervalometer
> 
> Hopefully existing Canon cameras will get this through a firmware update. Magic Lantern has already added the feature to my 5D III but it would be nice to access it without using third party hacks .


The thought struck me that Canon _are_ paying attention to what Magic Lantern are bringing to users... intervalometer, RGB raw metering, etc., I'm going to take a wild guess and say that it also has a programmable bulb timer and some other useful functionality that ML users enjoy.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 11, 2014)

It looks reasonable.... more or less what I expected they would release, except I still can't believe they left out WiFi and touchscreen. One of the great strengths of Canon is the user interface and this seems like a step backward from the 70D.... And we still don't know if the sensor is new tech or the 70D re-used....

I won't believe that these are the real specs until there is an official announcement by Canon....


----------



## unfocused (Sep 11, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Beyond a certain point, miniscule differences in sensors aren't going to sell cameras. But, 10 fps, 65 autofocus points, GPS, weather resistance, intervalometers, etc. will.
> ...



At 12 mp. Meh.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 11, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> It looks reasonable.... more or less what I expected they would release, except I still can't believe they left out WiFi and touchscreen. One of the great strengths of Canon is the user interface and this seems like a step backward from the 70D.... And we still don't know if the sensor is new tech or the 70D re-used....
> 
> I won't believe that these are the real specs until there is an official announcement by Canon....



Don,

Was there not some issue with trying to put an articulating touch panel in a body designed to be weather/bullet ;D proof? The yes, we have GPS, but No. not Wifi is a bit weird. I'm waiting to hear Canon's official rationale, but then again... they may just pull a giant gotcha.


----------



## Canon1 (Sep 11, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> then what were actually people expecting from the 7D replacement?



My guess is something better than a 1DX in all aspects but with a crop sensor camera.... priced at below $2k... and yes they also want to eat their cake too...


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Sep 11, 2014)

I thought we were getting some innovative video features too. I'm not seeing it here, Floyd.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 11, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



This same basic performance should scale with pixel size. In other words, the well capacity would go down but so would the read noise, and the QE should stay about the same. Together, that would be a pretty big advantage over current crop sensors - 1-2 stops at high ISO, and 1/2-1 stop at low ISO. That's a pretty big deal.


----------



## David Hull (Sep 11, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> Is the 70D that much behind the competition in terms if image quality? Is it really hideous compared to say a D7100, K3, Nex A6000 with much lower dynamic range, ISO performance and resolution?
> 
> I don't think so. In all the reviews they seem pretty neck to neck, with canon taking a small lead in noise and the Nikon taking a small lead in resolution.
> 
> This gives comparable image quality to all the industry, in a 10fps, 65 AF points, and all metal body. For the first time, we have a 10fps professional sports body for 1800$! That's definitely something. Nikon users have been dreaming for this camera since they had the D300.


Go look on DPR or some of the other sites at the 70D, 5DIII etc. compared to some of it's competitors and see it you see any big difference in the images.


----------



## plam_1980 (Sep 11, 2014)

To all of you who say, that these specs are appropriate for a 2014 camera and not for 2012, bear in mind that with this replacement cycle, the next 7D will be available in 2019. What would you think of those specs even in half of that term?
You claim that these specs are the best package compared to the competition, but the competition will be releasing their competing bodies in the near future, not in 5 years. This camera sounds boring


----------



## naylor83 (Sep 11, 2014)

A few thoughts:


No wifi? I don't doubt the CR specs, this feels just like a typical stupid Canon omission.
60 fps 1080p - great!!
10 fps - I'm sure this is great for many sports/bird shooters, but personally I would have preferred it if they went for higher resolution instead and stuck with 8 fps.
65 point AF. Sounds great, but it's only really useful if they're spread out over a larger area than the previous 19.
No touchscreen? Won't miss it that much, but it seems strange not to include it. Again, this is 2014.
Intervalometer - sounds like a fun thing to play around with.
“About 100% viewfinder coverage” - sounds like the same old so-so 98% from the 7D classic.

And to previous posters who claim there is no IQ difference between 7D and D7100 ... take a look at DPReview's comparison tool. Crank it up to ISO 3200, look at the fine details. The D7100 is obviously much more usable at high ISOs.


----------



## jrista (Sep 11, 2014)

David Hull said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > Is the 70D that much behind the competition in terms if image quality? Is it really hideous compared to say a D7100, K3, Nex A6000 with much lower dynamic range, ISO performance and resolution?
> ...



The problem with those sites is they generally only compare direct out of camera results. Of course there isn't any visible difference...they aren't utilizing the extra capabilities of cameras with more DR. 

For the 7D II, not having stellar low ISO performance isn't a big deal. It's a high ISO action/sports camera body. It will probably perform admirably at high ISO (although I doubt we'll be seeing A7s level high ISO performance out of this puppy), and it certainly has sports-grade features to rival the 1D X. It will be perfectly fine for what it is, and it still maintains the 7D lines "uniqueness" relative to the rest of the market.

There were a lot of us, however, who were hoping the 7D II would give us an indication that Canon has been pushing the envelope regarding their overall sensor IQ. That it would be something to show they are addressing the significant gains Sony has been making...now not only at low ISO (i.e. D810, A7r) but also at high ISO (A7s w/ Bionz). It's possible Canon will be using the NR capabilities of the DIGIC 6 to improve their high ISO performance...although I still suspect they won't be realizing up to a two-stop gain over older Canon sensors like the A7s.

We still need to see tests, but with the sensor being 20.2mp, it's difficult to imagine it being anything other than the 70D sensor, which isn't new, and therefor couldn't provide any kind of significant improvements on the IQ front. That dashes hopes for the 5D IV...as...Canon STILL seems to be staying the course.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 11, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > It looks reasonable.... more or less what I expected they would release, except I still can't believe they left out WiFi and touchscreen. One of the great strengths of Canon is the user interface and this seems like a step backward from the 70D.... And we still don't know if the sensor is new tech or the 70D re-used....
> ...



It didn't have to be articulated.... but with a decent WiFi interface you could use your phone or tablet as the touch screen.... and that would beat articulated hands down....


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 11, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> My guess (and it's nothing more than an educated such) is that GPS is a passive receiver, and it won't need to draw much juice from the battery.



The battery drain from the gps of the 6d is minor, and you can set a slower update interval if you want to save more. Enabling wifi means certain doom for your battery charge though.



jrista said:


> And thus thee dashes mine wonderful hopes for thine 5D IV...Canon.



You're serious? I would have very much doubted Canon's marketing abilities if they wouldn't introduce really new sensor tech on 1dx2 and €3500+ 5d4 - to make some profit out of these, they have to pack a big bang. At the end of the day, crop is for amateurs - that's been Canon's position all along, and why touch a running system?


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> And thus thee dashes mine wonderful hopes for thine 5D IV...Canon.
> 
> Not surprising, but still disappointing, on the sensor front. Time to look elsewhare for a landscape camera. No more waiting.
> 
> Other specs look good. Very curious to see how the AF system differs from the 1D X system, and how good it is.



We will know in a week if it is the same old sensor or if they are doing something different.


----------



## dadgummit (Sep 11, 2014)

I am 100% happy with the specs for the rumored price as long as they improved the High AND Low ISO sensor noise over the 7D. I am not expecting FF noise but my 40D and 50D had cleaner shadows at ISO 100.

It would be too cool if this camera can take pictures in IR but I am guessing the mention of IR is for either meetering or AF in difficult situations like a night time football game where they are running the ball into and out of the lights. 

Does the SD card slot support the latest fast cards? I remember the 5D3 did not support them and I ended up abandoning the use of dual cards because the SD could not keep up while shooting raw.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> And thus thee dashes mine wonderful hopes for thine 5D IV...Canon.
> 
> Not surprising, but still disappointing, on the sensor front. Time to look elsewhare for a landscape camera. No more waiting.



I'm confused. Do you mean that you were considering an APS-C camera as your best option for landscape use? Or do you mean that their re-use of the 70D's APS-C sensor in the 7DII demonstrates with *certainty* that there will be no improvements of the next full frame sensor?

If neither of the above are true, then the 7DII really has no bearing on the matter. If you're tired of waiting, invest in a different system...


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 11, 2014)

I've got no experience with an intervalometer. What is it exactly?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> I've got no experience with an intervalometer. What is it exactly?



It's for shooting time lapse sequences. Nice that Canon finally decided to incorporate this feature, although many of the third-party wired and wireless remotes provide it, as does Canon's (expensive) timer remote.


----------



## silat shooters (Sep 11, 2014)

Can certainly understand fellow members being upset with lack of major improvement in the sensor area. It appear this will be a focusing demon and great choice for tele shooters. I'm curious to see low light performance before deciding if to purchase.

But I'll share this, I recently ran into a Nikon employee and he was nice enough to engage me in conversation and he admitted the their sales were down and the industry is going through a tough transition. He also mentioned that at Nikon they are "constantly amazed that Canon shooters keep buying the 'vomit' that Canon throws out." 

I got that he was referring to the underwhelming innovations in their camera introductions. Now I'm not trying to start a fanboy war here or create a new dialogue on this thread. Like many here, I'm heavily invested in Canon glass and love the IQ I get from my 5D III. But when you see companies like Sony just coming to market with soo many interesting products and ideas and you know Canon has the R&D structure to compete with any brand, it does leave you wishing for more from them. 

I hope the 7D II is truly an amazing imaging tool. Eager to see.


----------



## bholliman (Sep 11, 2014)

I don't shoot much sports or action so I won't be buying this body. I'll be more interested in future FF bodies, like the 5D Mk4 or 6D Mk2.

But, it is well spec'd. The AF system should be very 1Dx-like at a reasonable price. Looks like a great camera for an action shooter on a budget.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 11, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> I've got no experience with an intervalometer. What is it exactly?



Go, Magic Lantern, Go  ... you don't need a 7d2 for that, a Rebel 550d+ will do just fine.



jrista said:


> I see the 7D II getting the 70D's APS-C sensor as a sign that Canon hasn't changed their M.O.



Like "don't rock the boat and make as much profit with as little investments as possible"? True.



jrista said:


> If they didn't already use a new fab and new technology for the 7D II (which was significantly delayed and gave then plenty of time to do such a thing), then there is no reason to believe they have done anything with their sensor design or fabrication at all.



I admit you've lost me there - the 7d2 specs are no indication for anything concerning the 5d4 and no reason a_gainst_ believing they have a real sensor upgrade in the pipeline.

However 7d2 _is_ proof that Canon stays Canon and they don't cave in (as they'd probably see it) building/using new fabs even under pressure from Nikon/Sony. They are doing just fine with good dslrs featuring mediocre sensors and good phase af systems, at least atm. If they add a stellar live view af and good usability, what amount of people outside geek forums really care about dr (dr. what)?.


----------



## RickWagoner (Sep 11, 2014)

Wow! After a five year wait and all the 7D owners get is this, even the 2 extra fps is a laugh. 

Can not wait till reviewers get their hands on it and see if the buffer is larger. 


I myself can't wait for a good old fashion Canon 70D sale! I would rather save $1k and shoot birds with the smaller and lighter camera. 

at least Canon is protecting their 70D sales with this.


----------



## FEBS (Sep 11, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > then what were actually people expecting from the 7D replacement?
> ...



Keep on dreaming !!


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 11, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> then what were actually people expecting from the 7D replacement?



Early rumors were about special video features, which led me to things like 4k, a hybrid viewfinder, no row skipping, and smooth continuous windowing.

As for stills, I was hoping for more pixels, but this isn't bad and the rest of the specs look really good for stills.


----------



## NancyP (Sep 11, 2014)

I hope that the buffer size is reasonable, 3 to 4 seconds worth of RAW (30 to 40 RAW). This seems like a good spec list for the amateur bird photographer who wishes to stick with one of the less expensive long lenses (mine is the 400 f/5.6L). f/8 AF on center point would allow use of the Canon 1.4x TC with the 400, maintaining AF. 
The Canon 7D classic and 70D are now both ~ $1,000.00 to $1,100.00. At the proposed ~$1,800.00 price point, with the 10 fps, massively improved AF system, and minimally improved signal processing to banish the lines, I could accept the 70D sensor. This sounds like a fine action camera, sufficiently improved over the 60D to merit my purchase. Operablity means a lot more to me than the sensor. Now, I would like there to be a 6D2 with improved resolution and DR, and maintaining a good low light response, but that's another tool for a completely different use.


----------



## beyondobvious (Sep 11, 2014)

Perhaps the management and high level staff at Canon have a very good strategy to keep food on their table, they feed us a little at a time so they could keep eating. However the introduction of the 6D brings affordability to full-frame allowing aspiring crop sensor users who want to .... to rise above mediocrity without having to wait for ages for a much better camera.
Its true that we are a long way from the days of the 3 and 5 megapixel cameras, but to satisfy our lust for more sensor some may need to upgrade to full-frame.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 11, 2014)

they're feeding you little? This camera is boring? disappointing specs? about the highest speced camera on the market under 6000$? 

I wish Nikon, Panasonic, Sony, Olympus, Pentax guys come here and take a look at what you're saying


----------



## crashpc (Sep 11, 2014)

Sensor, sensor, sensor. I still hope they managed to make it better, but I won´t upgrade in something what´s already years old, to use it for another 4-6 years. Not a chance. Do you hear me, Canon!? Sony is waiting behind door if you don´t deliver!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

crashpc said:


> Sensor, sensor, sensor. I still hope they managed to make it better, but I won´t upgrade in something what´s already years old, to use it for another 4-6 years. Not a chance. Do you hear me, Canon!? Sony is waiting behind door if you don´t deliver!



Maybe holding your breath and stomping your foot would help?


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 11, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> they're feeding you little? This camera is boring? disappointing specs? about the highest speced camera on the market under 6000$?
> 
> I wish Nikon, Panasonic, Sony, Olympus, Pentax guys come here and take a look at what you're saying


People bitched and moaned about the 5DIII specs, too, and then they actually used one! I think this will the same and to have 90-95% of a 1D X in a much smaller package will be pretty amazing if the sensor is at least a stop better than the 7D.


----------



## crashpc (Sep 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > Sensor, sensor, sensor. I still hope they managed to make it better, but I won´t upgrade in something what´s already years old, to use it for another 4-6 years. Not a chance. Do you hear me, Canon!? Sony is waiting behind door if you don´t deliver!
> ...



Seems I won´t make it to Photokina. My brain is already fried which smells really bad , and at the time of release, I won´t be able to handle even the effing shutter button. That´s what Canon does to people


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 11, 2014)

By the way, the sensor was not the weak point of video quality in the 70D. We know the sensor is capable of producing incredible results in stills mode. It's how that image coming off the sensor is scaled down to 1080p, processed and compressed to the H.264 codec. 

Even if it has the 70D sensor (which it may not), this does not necessarily mean similar video quality, it's all about the processing.

First of all I hope they got rid of line-skipping and switch to elegant pixel-binning as on the 5DIII, that derided moire & aliasing are just not acceptable on the 7D mk II anymore. I certainly hope they used those processors to do sophisticated noise reduction and up the ISO performance a stop or more. Resolution is important too, the dual digic 6 processors should be able to do an elegant down sampling of the 20.2mp to sharp 1080p.

I want this to produce C100-like images (minus the crazy lowlight and a bit of detail) rather than 7D-like images. Come on Canon, everybody else is doing it, the Nikon, the A6000/A5100/ everybody. Give me a great video DSLR in a Canon APS-C body!


----------



## unfocused (Sep 11, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> They are doing just fine with good dslrs featuring *mediocre* sensors and good phase af systems, at least atm. If they add a stellar live view af and good usability, what amount of people outside geek forums really care about dr (dr. what)?.



Not picking on you Marsu, because your basic point about what people care about is valid, but I am pretty tired of claims that Canon sensors are "mediocre," which is one of the more mild terms used.

We have reached the point in sensor development where, absent some major breakthrough for some magical no noise-200-steps-of-dynamic-range-shoot-in-the-pitch black technology the differences between all major brands of sensors don't amount to a dime. 

Every sensor -- even that little sensor in your iPhone -- produces better pictures than were generally available during the film era. Full frame, APS-C, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, it doesn't matter. They all produce stellar results that were impossible not that long ago.

The only way anyone can tell any difference is by invoking obscure laboratory test results, blowing up images on a computer screen to bizarre proportions or shooting straight into the sun.


----------



## Steve (Sep 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> People bitched and moaned about the 5DIII specs, too, and then they actually used one! I think this will the same and to have 90-95% of a 1D X in a much smaller package will be pretty amazing if the sensor is at least a stop better than the 7D.



I think this camera, spec'd as is, is going to be just great for a ton of people, especially those looking to upgrade from an older xxD or as a companion to the 6D. Its just not that exciting when there is a pro level body with excellent AF, the same burst speed, a deep buffer, a pro build/shutter and a bigger, better sensor that you can get used for about what the 7D will be priced at. The 1DIV is five years old and compares favorably or even better in just about every metric. That's my issue with it. I was hoping for something that would make me look at my 1DIV and think it worth an upgrade.


----------



## bowtiez (Sep 11, 2014)

Hmm, interesting. Let's see how this camera really performs. The intervalometer is something long overdue.


----------



## Maui5150 (Sep 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> Because, it just doesn't seem to be in Canon's plans to change their sensors.



I think it says to the contrary.

Seeing what is likely a minor improved sensor and much improved AF to me makes me think Canon is putting more into the next generation FF

There was many who thought that the Pro APS-C might be coming to end of life and that is my read into the 7d MK II

Improved AF, solid metal body, high FPS, decent sensor, not crazy High ISO

Basically the 7D MKII is a 70D with slightly more pro features and a more durable body to withstand more use and elements.

I can see a 5DIV, a High MP and a IDXs in the future and think that is where Canon is putting their efforts.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > Even if it has the 70D sensor (which it may not), this does not necessarily mean similar video quality, it's all about the processing.
> ...



Wow that's a BIG claim from Canon's part! If that actually materializes into the 7D video being two stops ahead of the 70D in low-light, that would be huge in the video world. That's way ahead of all the competition. I also can't imagine they will do line-skipping with moire and aliasing as on the 70D, if they did, it would be a clear sign from Canon for abandoning the filmmaking market. 

I absolutely don't need a 4K camera. I just want it to be a great 1080p camera, with C100-like detail and high ISO noise, and with NO moire & aliasing as on the 5D mk III. Perhaps this will also have Clean HDMI out with mirroring like the 5D mk III. It seems to have a headphone jack (finally!) like the 5D III too. DPAF is a great addition for filmmakers. Just hope they give a great 1080p image. This will be my deciding factor of sticking with the Canon ecosystem or jumping to the A7s/GH4 crowd.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 11, 2014)

This is a solid camera, but with today's market it's almost a niche camera for sports & wildlife shooters. I can't think of a single reason a portrait, landscape, or event shooter would get this over the 6D. Maybe those who dabble in everything will.

Viability for video is yet to be seen. 4k is still pretty new so I think it'll still be used (at least a little bit) if Canon was able to fix their mushy, detail-less output and aliasing/moire problems. Honestly, I doubt it though. I think it's just going to look like either 70D or 5DIII footage, and those who were holding out for a Canon "response" to the amazing video coming from other manufacturers in this price range will move on. 

I do have to say, the omission of Wifi when it's almost 2015 is pathetic.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> Honestly, I doubt it though. I think it's just going to look like either 70D or 5DIII footage, and those who were holding out for a Canon "response" to the amazing video coming from other manufacturers in this price range will move on.



maybe we will see a v2.0 firmare update some day that brings 4k video.

the olympus E-M1 will get 4K video via firmware update as it seems (is rumored).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Because, it just doesn't seem to be in Canon's plans to change their sensors.
> ...



5D -> 5DII Nearly double sensor resolution, most other major features unchanged

5DII -> 5DIII Similar sensor, most other features substantially improved

5DIII -> 5DIV 

There's at least a rationale to believe that, since the 5DIII is 'practically perfect in (almost) every way', we'll see substantial changes in the sensor with the next 5-series body.


----------



## fragilesi (Sep 11, 2014)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> This is a solid camera, but with today's market it's almost a niche camera for sports & wildlife shooters. I can't think of a single reason a portrait, landscape, or event shooter would get this over the 6D.



It's not aimed at those people . . . but it is aimed at anyone who wants to capture something that isn't just sat still in front of them. It's hardly a small "niche" is it?


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

I agree. A 7D II with enormously, unrealistically improved sensor (all the people clamoring, oooh I wish this had more DR than the 5DIII) is just plain stupid when a 5DIV hasn't been released. I think you're right, Canon will iterate with the 7D II and release their cutting edge tech in the 5D IV and 1DXII. These specs are already killer, and people often forget that autofocus and sharp lenses across the board are much more effective at getting a killer professional event image than using Sony's sensor, which they can turn around and use in their own products and compete with your own (cough, Pentax, Nikon, etc.).



Maui5150 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Because, it just doesn't seem to be in Canon's plans to change their sensors.
> ...


----------



## cellomaster27 (Sep 11, 2014)

this is pretty exciting. especially if the price is around 1800. I think we all need to wait and see how the thing performs before bashing it. I myself am a little disappointed? mainly due to all the hype on CR. ;D but for the price, this thing blasts nikon out of the water. well, aps-c equivalent. Definitely a flagship model for aps-c range.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 11, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Not picking on you Marsu, because your basic point about what people care about is valid, but I am pretty tired of claims that Canon sensors are "mediocre," which is one of the more mild terms used.



I was talking of the _relative_ position of Canon's tech in today's digital camera sales. As I keep pointing out, the whole package counts and in absolute terms it's certainly "good enough"...

... but: Canon has less resolution, more pattern noise and less dynamic range at lower iso. It has catches up on higher iso and has even a bit better dr, but that's still 3:1 for the competition which qualifies as "mediocre" in my book. It doesn't need giving in to trolls to admit to that and keep on shooting happily ever after.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

Bahaha, stupid "I'ma threaten to jump ships b.c. I can't make good images with my current gear" crowd. Sony ergonomics and alpha/nex lenses (either price or quality) are awful for the most part. They'll take longer to iterate to match Canon's ergonomics and lens selection and prices (their damn 70-200 II is $3000) than Canon will to release a sensor update. I had a long chat with a sony store salesman who bragged that he used an a77 and 70-200 ($3000) for surfing photography. He claimed to be still working on his portfolio website, but I checked out his images that were online already, pure shit! Measurebators and armchair commandos can go suck it while the rest of us use what we have instead beating our sticks to specs.



neuroanatomist said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > Sensor, sensor, sensor. I still hope they managed to make it better, but I won´t upgrade in something what´s already years old, to use it for another 4-6 years. Not a chance. Do you hear me, Canon!? Sony is waiting behind door if you don´t deliver!
> ...


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 11, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > This is a solid camera, but with today's market it's almost a niche camera for sports & wildlife shooters. I can't think of a single reason a portrait, landscape, or event shooter would get this over the 6D.
> ...



So you're saying it's aimed at bad photographers who need 10fps and 63 focus points to get a good shot? The 6D (and every camera ever made) can capture things that don't sit still just fine.


----------



## crashpc (Sep 11, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> Bahaha, stupid "I'ma threaten to jump ships b.c. I can't make good images with my current gear" crowd. Sony ergonomics and alpha/nex lenses (either price or quality) are awful for the most part. They'll take longer to iterate to match Canon's ergonomics and lens selection and prices (their damn 70-200 II is $3000) than Canon will to release a sensor update. I had a long chat with a sony store salesman who bragged that he used an a77 and 70-200 ($3000) for surfing photography. He claimed to be still working on his portfolio website, but I checked out his images that were online already, pure S___! Measurebators and armchair commandos can go suck it while the rest of us use what we have instead beating our sticks to specs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



With EOS M, I really am not able to make good images at times. Mostly due to AF, but when I will buy new body (and I have not many lenses) I might be in good position to upgrade, but with different brand. But you seem to be all knowing. I might bite my tongue and go back DSLR with D7100 or maybe D7200 instead on anything else. I just don´t know, and I won´t buy any old "pathetic" product for next decade.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

Ironic that they lock themselves into 1080p for their wildlife camera for another 3-5 years on the same day that SanDisc announces a high-speed, high-capacity card to suit the needs of all the current and arriving 4k cams.

My guess is the sensor is basically the 70D sensor and nothing more.

The AF system should be a mega-improvement and totally world class. Everything else seems almost outdated already. They could have released this with a likely slightly worse 5D3/1DX AF a couple years ago.

I fear JapaneseCanonFanGirls info that Canon decided that they could release bodies behind other manufacturers and get away with it, so why not, are correct.

At least they do appear to have gone full hog for the AF system though.
It should be a non-DR limited scenario action/reach stills beast.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Ironic that they lock themselves into 1080p for their wildlife camera for another 3-5 years on the same day that SanDisc announces a high-speed, high-capacity card to suit the needs of all the current and arriving 4k cams.



that is also my main concern.

or canon plans to release a MK2 successor in 2 years?


----------



## fragilesi (Sep 11, 2014)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > CarlMillerPhoto said:
> ...




What an odd way of interpreting what I said.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> So you're saying it's aimed at bad photographers who need 10fps and 63 focus points to get a good shot?



Yep. The 1D X is aimed at the same sort of people, just the ones with more money. :


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 11, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Ironic that they lock themselves into 1080p for their wildlife camera for another 3-5 years on the same day that SanDisc announces a high-speed, high-capacity card to suit the needs of all the current and arriving 4k cams.
> 
> My guess is the sensor is basically the 70D sensor and nothing more.
> 
> ...



You may well be 100% correct about the sensor, but we've seen rumors that suggest while it's the same pixel density it's not the same sensor. I know, i know. Take it with a grain of salt. But pair that up with DUAL Digic 6 chips and we really have the potential to make a serious beast. And firmware update for 4k down the road... may be feasible. I'm not tech saavy enough to know if it's something as simple as a firmware upgrade, but why would you NOT then just put in Dual Digic 5+ like the 1DX? Something suggests to me that they perhaps wanted to leave as much headroom as possible. If a full frame can do what it does with Dual Digic 5 and a Single Digic 4 for autofocus ... Dual Digic 6 (probably, what 5 times the CPU power??) on APS-C you would think you run the space shuttle. I dunno. Would love to hear some feedback. We will all know tomorrow or Monday I suppose ;-) I'm thinking Canon still has some major reveal about this body we have yet to hear about


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 11, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > fragilesi said:
> ...



I've got both. They each have their places. Canon 7D will probably have little effect on potential 6D sales regardless of pricing. Two completely different rigs.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

It is good to see they went full hog (most likely, granted the 7D had a lot of AF points, but none of them actually worked as well as any 1 series point, but I trust they went full 1 series quality this time) with the AF. It should be a total beast for reach/action (when not DR limited).

But I have a bad feeling it's just gonna be a slightly tweaked 70D sensor at best.

And 1080p? This cam is supposed to be good for 3-5 years. Soon they will be the only manufacturer without a high-reach 4k cam. A bit ironic that the day SanDisc goes on about the 4k revolution and introducing new 4k optimized cards, Canon comes out with 1080p again.

I kinda fear that JapaneseCanonFanGirlEmployees rumor that Canon has decided people are too locked in and since sales are not yet going horribly, that they can simply get away with knowingly releasing bodies behind other maker's specs.

Panny has 4k out already, rumor is that Nikon may introduce 4k next week. All the other makers have sensors that provide much better DR at low ISO. A bit sad that the revolution Canon created, they are willing to already fall behind on.

Nothing in this cam seems likely to not have been able to have been released 2 years ago other than the new AF (which could've been 5D3/1DX AF 2 years ago). Unless they really did soup up the DPAF AF and it really is so fast that it can assist the phase AF and make the phase AF never miss anymore. That certainly would be something and quite a revolution.

For sensors and video I fear they have simply given up trying for the first case and have decided they'd rather let someone else steal sales away rather than dare cannibalize their own video products at the higher end. That all seems rather BlackBerry and Atari of them. Although I, perhaps foolishly now, still hold out hope that the 5D4 next year will have some updated sensor tech. It is just a bit of a shame to see them cripple out things like 4k video and so on and it leaves on worried that even if the 5D4 delivers 4k it will be crippled a bit and that no 1080p RAW will be allowed either. Canon just seems to a follower for the most part, if even. At least for their bodies.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 11, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> So what, i should use DPP instead or LR and that fixes everything?



No. You should *not* pretend that a sensor score is the gospel truth when it comes from a company that *does not even know how Canon encodes their RAW files!*

Anyone shooting a step wedge gets the same DR from a 70D as from the latest Sony APS-C sensors. DxO's black box of formulas spits out a number 2 stops short. Why should I believe them instead of my eyes?

Anyone pushing shadow detail will see that the latest Sony APS-C sensors are cleaner, no one denies that. But you have to push hard (>3 stops) for it to matter in the real world with real world RAW converter and NR settings.



> People like the EXMOR sensors because they actually see a difference.



Then why can't any of the DRones produce real world examples for the rest of us? :

All these threads...all these posts...the darn 7D2 isn't even announced yet! _"But the MP is the same so the sensor must be the same and I'm going to scream and yell and stomp my feet!"_ The native ISO range is not the same and rumors were consistent that this is a new sensor. But why wait and see when we can DRone on and on.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

Wow, you have an EOS M. You're SOOO invested. You must know about ALL the great lenses, flash and understanding light. Real pro, dude. True, the sensor on the EOS M (price of $200-300 means that's the best sensor for the paltry money) is better than its af. But you really can't compare systems until you've tried them both. I've used both the full frame Canon and Nikon systems (D700,800, D3, 5DIII, 16-400mm in f/2.8 lenses and f/1.2 and f/1.4 prime lenses on both), and there are upsides and downsides to both. Focus accuracy is way better on Canon. Dynamic range is better on Nikon. They're neck and neck, and harping about Canon's dr is limiting your scope. Both systems are good, but a D7100 without a fucking good lens is a dumb decision. Pay attention to lenses and lighting gear, and you'll get much better results than fapping off to the latest body that will probably empty your budget (if you're on an EOS M, I don't think you can afford a D7100, 24-70 f/2.8G and 70-200G VR II right off the bat). And if you're on Nikon, you WILL want one of their full frame lenses as their APS-C lenses are complete shit. 



crashpc said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > Bahaha, stupid "I'ma threaten to jump ships b.c. I can't make good images with my current gear" crowd. Sony ergonomics and alpha/nex lenses (either price or quality) are awful for the most part. They'll take longer to iterate to match Canon's ergonomics and lens selection and prices (their damn 70-200 II is $3000) than Canon will to release a sensor update. I had a long chat with a sony store salesman who bragged that he used an a77 and 70-200 ($3000) for surfing photography. He claimed to be still working on his portfolio website, but I checked out his images that were online already, pure S___! Measurebators and armchair commandos can go suck it while the rest of us use what we have instead beating our sticks to specs.
> ...


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 11, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> If $1799 is fairly accurate, then game on. Yes it's 20.2 MP sensor. Same pixel count as 70D, but wasn't it said before that it is NOT the same sensor as the 70D? So we don't know squat yet. The RGB+IR is very intriguing. The 65AF + 10fps... awesome. Love it. By the way... the last 7D sensor has 18.1 MP and two Digic 4s. Dual Digic 6 processors could well translate into significantly cleaner high ISO images even if they stuck the same old sensor in there.
> 
> If this camera comes out at $2500 like folks initially assumed, it's far less exciting to me and probably most folks. I'm looking forward to the official announcement and some side by side to old 7D (which I own). I don't care what Samsung and Sony have. They have a sensor. Canon makes Cameras. And Lenses. This system in my opinion and for my uses is vastly superior to other options. I'm looking forward to this.



Well said. I am very interested at that price point. You can bet that I will probably upgrade, sell my 7D and buy the 7D2.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 11, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> I've got both. They each have their places. Canon 7D will probably have little effect on potential 6D sales regardless of pricing. Two completely different rigs.



Indeed, just as Canon likes it: What's better than a camera sale? Two camera sales.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

And, btw, armchair man, I've used the D7000 for journalism and sports alongside my other Nikon gear. Complete shit autofocus. But if you like blurry images, go for it. D7100 should be better, but comparing it to a 7D II is kinda stupid b.c. the buffer is shit and the frame rate is ah-ite. The D300/D300s is a better cheap aps-c camera for professional use (sharp images b.c. of way better focus) than the D7000. I don't get the stupid hype for that camera and the D90. Overrated cameras, imo. It's all about the D300, D700 and D3 series cameras. Get results instead of holding your bated breath (like Neuroanatomist said) for new cameras that won't be out for another year or two. Measurebator.



joejohnbear said:


> Wow, you have an EOS M. You're SOOO invested. You must know about ALL the great lenses, flash and understanding light. Real pro, dude. True, the sensor on the EOS M (price of $200-300 means that's the best sensor for the paltry money) is better than its af. But you really can't compare systems until you've tried them both. I've used both the full frame Canon and Nikon systems (D700,800, D3, 5DIII, 16-400mm in f/2.8 lenses and f/1.2 and f/1.4 prime lenses on both), and there are upsides and downsides to both. Focus accuracy is way better on Canon. Dynamic range is better on Nikon. They're neck and neck, and harping about Canon's dr is limiting your scope. Both systems are good, but a D7100 without a F______ good lens is a dumb decision. Pay attention to lenses and lighting gear, and you'll get much better results than fapping off to the latest body that will probably empty your budget (if you're on an EOS M, I don't think you can afford a D7100, 24-70 f/2.8G and 70-200G VR II right off the bat). And if you're on Nikon, you WILL want one of their full frame lenses as their APS-C lenses are complete S___.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

But the AF might be the best ever perhaps.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

I guess CR actually nailed the stuff, even lenses!, ahead of time this time! So for all the talk about most locked down ever, they actually got all the stuff earlier than the last couple rounds!


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 11, 2014)

plam_1980 said:


> To all of you who say, that these specs are appropriate for a 2014 camera and not for 2012, bear in mind that with this replacement cycle, the next 7D will be available in 2019. What would you think of those specs even in half of that term?
> You claim that these specs are the best package compared to the competition, but the competition will be releasing their competing bodies in the near future, not in 5 years. This camera sounds boring



Except that nothing is stopping Canon from releasing a 7D3 next year if they wish. The "development cycle" was not 5 years because it was difficult for Canon to produce this camera, nor is it set in stone. It was 5 years because as of this moment there are still no competitors to the 7D for pro sports! The closest competitor is Canon's own 70D!!!

I remember when people where whining (DRoning?) that Canon had no answer to the D300. Well Canon answered it, and Nikon never responded. And now we've got a 7D2 coming that is a little brother to the 1DX.

People will quote the specs from the new Samsung mirrorless, but we have yet to see if it will be the first MILC to have AF tracking that can touch a PDAF DSLR. So far none of them can. I suspect nothing will change with the Samsung. 15 fps is useless if the camera can't hold focus lock. It's also of little use if you don't have the lenses to back it up.

I'll worry about whatever cameras come in 5 years. On Monday when this thing is announced it will be the absolute top of the line crop DSLR for sports, wildlife, and action.

"But muh DxO score!" I'll be busy printing 16x20" prints while the DRones cry that the sensor is useless ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

DootsHK said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I have a question related to the potential availability of the 7D Mark II: “_I expect to see this camera announced on Monday with availability in *late October or early November*_”.
> 
> ...



i still don't get their timing. Why release and action sports cam just as fall sports are wrapping up and spring sports are months away? On shelves by September seems more sensible to me. And April releases even moreso.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

I second both of your comments. I use a 7D as backup to my 5DIII and while I hate the sensor and af compared to the III, it gets the job done for field sports where I need the extra crop. A 7D II with slightly improved sensor, but much better AF would be a win and eventual write-off on my taxes.

I wholeheartedly agree with Pure's statement: "I don't care what Samsung and Sony have. They have a sensor. Canon makes Cameras. And Lenses. This system in my opinion and for my uses is vastly superior to other options."

I don't give a shit if Sony makes this sensor or that sensor if they can't back it up with quality and competitively priced lenses. Why should I switch to a system with more expensive lenses with shittier ergonomics and autofocus? They're a specs and consumer electronics company, not one that listens to their pro photogs. I see good things happening with Canon, Fujifilm and Pentax 645z in this department (listening to their professional customers) instead of playing the specs game like Sony is doing. Ever hear of Canon or Nikon Professional services? Sony doesn't have that shit either. There's a big reason why every football or olympics game, you don't see a single Sony supertelephoto on the field. Maybe a fan with special sideline tickets and an a77 with kit lens, but that's about it.



dtaylor said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > If $1799 is fairly accurate, then game on. Yes it's 20.2 MP sensor. Same pixel count as 70D, but wasn't it said before that it is NOT the same sensor as the 70D? So we don't know squat yet. The RGB+IR is very intriguing. The 65AF + 10fps... awesome. Love it. By the way... the last 7D sensor has 18.1 MP and two Digic 4s. Dual Digic 6 processors could well translate into significantly cleaner high ISO images even if they stuck the same old sensor in there.
> ...


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 11, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > I've got both. They each have their places. Canon 7D will probably have little effect on potential 6D sales regardless of pricing. Two completely different rigs.
> ...



;D HAHA! Very true! But in all seriousness If you stop and think about it, it's pretty slick. Canon makes two Cameras at the same price point (or close enough). One is built to offer the best performance $1800 can buy for sports, wildlife, fast action, all around, best AF, FPS, etc... (7D2) OR you can spend you 1800 on a fantastic full frame perfect for you wedding and portrait shooters (6D). 

You want both? Here's your 5d3. It's more for the wedding and portrait guy, but If you REALLY want the best for both worlds... Here's your 1dX

I think from a business/marketing perspective, Canon hit this one right so far as where the pricing plays out in their lineup


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

Quackator said:


> IF RGB + IR does not refer to metering but the image sensor,
> THEN this is the most interesting camera of the last 15 years.
> 
> I think I need one.



It specifically says that it refers to metering though. It is the metering sensor. It should meter much better than the 7D hopefully.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Actually, that's not quite true. The pictures you take with the lens cap on followed by a five-stop exposure push…those pictures matter.
> 
> :



or you know, pictures taken in a stunning redwood forest or whatnot, but really it's the same nonsense, redwoods, lens caps, it's all the same lab geek stuff and matters to nobody who actually is an artiste and takes pictures and knows how to use a camera.... :


----------



## Tugela (Sep 11, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess they decided not to take video seriously then.....disappointing.
> ...



That is not true, full frame creates more limitations on video than a crop sensor. A 5D4 would only be good for static video due to depth of field issues, it is entirely the wrong camera type for general purpose video. That is the reason why so many camcorders (which are designed specifically for video) have small sensors. The APS-C sensor size is roughly about the right compromise size for the two types of video people shoot, so it is the appropriate sensor type for a still/video hybrid system.

Canon have dropped the ball with the 7D2. I'm sure it will be a fine stills camera, but it is a fail as an integrated imaging system. Perhaps they could improve some things later through firmware, but the hardware limitations such as the use of Digic 6 processors and the lack of a touch screen cripple the camera for video use. There will be far superior alternatives as integrated imaging systems in competition, and the 7D2 will be a long way behind those cameras.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

I'm sorry, but I get irritated when people comment without ever touching the products mentioned. This is what I call an "armchair commentator." I agree, my attitude could use some toning down, but I'm kind of sick and tired of comments from people with little to no experience with Canon harping about jumping ship. I say, GO, JUMP! Lose your hard-earned dollars in the process. In crashpc's case, he's not that invested in the system.

Nikon's autofocus is better in the dark because of their built-in af-assist light, and their autofocus points blink red compared to the 1dx system which stays black. Whether or not each system focuses better in low-light without af-assist varies per camera, i.e. 6D center point is -2 or -3ev focusing vs D600 and 5DIII which is just -1 or -2. If you use a speedlight with flash disabled on single shot, the focusing is pretty much the same all around. I've heard good things about the A7s in low-light, tried one in store and in normal light, the focus is really just the same as any other consumer camera, BUT you can't change the damn focus points directly like you can on Canon.

Anecdotal or not, I compare based off of my personal real world and practical experience, not just sitting at home and reading other internet reviews. Get out and get your hands on the REAL products, try them out in store, talk to the Canon, Sony and Nikon reps to see how truthful they are, rent, buy, get on the field or in the dance floor and USE them, and THEN formulate an opinion.




jrista said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > And, btw, armchair man, I've used the D7000 for journalism and sports alongside my other Nikon gear. Complete S___ autofocus. But if you like blurry images, go for it. D7100 should be better, but comparing it to a 7D II is kinda stupid b.c. the buffer is S___ and the frame rate is ah-ite. The D300/D300s is a better cheap aps-c camera for professional use (sharp images b.c. of way better focus) than the D7000. I don't get the stupid hype for that camera and the D90. Overrated cameras, imo. It's all about the D300, D700 and D3 series cameras. Get results instead of holding your bated breath (like Neuroanatomist said) for new cameras that won't be out for another year or two. Measurebator.
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> I thought we were getting some innovative video features too. I'm not seeing it here, Floyd.



Yeah, well at least we know which set of rumor sender in-ers are bogus. One set kept saying the 7D2 would be all about video and video revolutions. And the other set said it would be about 1-series like AF and fps. (Both sets said the sensor would only be slightly new and that most revolutions would be held, if they even have any upcoming, for 5D4/1DX2. Although one side set said the 7D2 would have a totally new and revolutionary sensor).

So the ones who said it would have a modest sensor difference and be all about 1 series AF and speed were the ones who had info, the rest were being fed disinfo or simply making stuff up.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 11, 2014)

Tugela said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



Ok, I'll bite. How are Dual Digic 6 CPUs "a limitation"


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 11, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > They are doing just fine with good dslrs featuring *mediocre* sensors and good phase af systems, at least atm. If they add a stellar live view af and good usability, what amount of people outside geek forums really care about dr (dr. what)?.
> ...



While leaving all noise reduction off. Can't forget that one!

Want to know why Canon's sales haven't been affected by this so called SoNikon juggernaut of sensor goodness? Just look at the absence of real world comparison photos in this thread. *Nobody sees this claimed massive difference in the real world.* If they did this thread would be full of photos, not theorizing and crying.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> And thus thee dashes mine wonderful hopes for thine 5D IV...Canon.
> 
> Not surprising, but still disappointing, on the sensor front. Time to look elsewhare for a landscape camera. No more waiting.
> 
> Other specs look good. Very curious to see how the AF system differs from the 1D X system, and how good it is.



I still wonder what happened with that Canon exec who hinted that it would be out Fall 2013 and shift the 7D series into entirely new and revolutionary ground. I guess maybe he just meant shift it to full 1 series AF performance? Maybe they struggled not with making a new sensor (which it seems they still have not even begun to think about using a new fab), but with this new souped up AF that may be even better than 5D3/1DX and wanted to get it perfected. Or maybe marketing just wanted to milk the 7D as long as they could.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

Actually, the ideal sensor is the APS-H/Super-35 sized ones on the C100-500, the Sony FS100-700K, RED, Arri Alexa and Phantom cameras. Don't expect the same features or quality of those cameras in an $1800 camera. If you really do a lot of video and are on a small budget, go for a Panosonic GH4. But if you're just a still photographer who wants to ****** around with video for fun, just understand that you get what you pay for and Canon's not going to cannibalize it's cinema lineup just because there's a small niche market for occasional video shooters.



Tugela said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

Preach!



dtaylor said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> And thus thee dashes mine wonderful hopes for thine 5D IV...Canon.
> 
> Not surprising, but still disappointing, on the sensor front. Time to look elsewhare for a landscape camera. No more waiting.



I will still wait for 5D4 at this point, just a few more months. If that still has the same old sensor though, yeah, forget it, as extremely badly as I do not want to leave Canon, I'm afraid I'll finally have to start shifting to Nikon I guess (they say Nikon may hit 4k video next week already too).



> Other specs look good. Very curious to see how the AF system differs from the 1D X system, and how good it is.



yeah. I predict better than the 1DX AF for sure. (certainly not worse, otherwise there is no point to this release at all)


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

It's a rumors site! I don't get why everyone gets their panties in a bunch when some of them don't pan out to be true. I've learned to just have fun when the rumors come out, and really only take a rumor seriously when a company releases a product officially. Same with any company, Canon, Apple, Nikon, etc. I laughed when everyone got pissed that the D600 wasn't lower than $2000 on launch day.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> HurtinMinorKey said:
> 
> 
> > I thought we were getting some innovative video features too. I'm not seeing it here, Floyd.
> ...


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 11, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> degies said:
> 
> 
> > I have been holding back for a 7Dii as backup to my 5D3 but with these specs it hardly seems worth the wait
> ...



If it's such a good match to the 5DIII as you suggest, I may be in...


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 11, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> Bahaha, stupid "I'ma threaten to jump ships b.c. I can't make good images with my current gear" crowd. Sony ergonomics and alpha/nex lenses (either price or quality) are awful for the most part. They'll take longer to iterate to match Canon's ergonomics and lens selection and prices (their damn 70-200 II is $3000) than Canon will to release a sensor update. I had a long chat with a sony store salesman who bragged that he used an a77 and 70-200 ($3000) for surfing photography. He claimed to be still working on his portfolio website, but I checked out his images that were online already, pure S___! Measurebators and armchair commandos can go suck it while the rest of us use what we have instead beating our sticks to specs.



Harsh, but it needed to be said. I really like the A7 bodies, but the lenses are too few and over priced. It's only viable if you adapt lenses. Ergonomics are OK with a few odd decisions. Not to the level of a Canon DSLR. Still, it's a small, FF mirrorless that can take almost any lens.

But I've never given Sony's DSLRs any serious consideration. Canon dominates here with their bodies and lenses. The only thing from Sony that has ever caught my eye is a FF MILC because who else has one?

I can tease out the superior Exmor shadow latitude if I want. But you know what? I can pretty consistently get 3 stops of push out of Canon's shadows. If I need more then that, my exposure was wrong. Period.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Sep 11, 2014)

$1800 for a crop sensor?

No. Just no.

At that point, it's time to go full frame.

The 70D is a very solid camera for $1099


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 11, 2014)

Digic 6...so this won't be 'generation 1' of this processor but I am trying to understand a few things about sensors. 

1. So what stays the same in order for it to remain a DIGIC 6 processor? Are there aspects of the 'architecture' that will be identical across all generations of this processor?

2. Aside from a name, what stops it from being DIGIC 7?

3. Can performance in this iteration be radically improved over earlier ones? How far can one 'dial up' the performance?

4. The 1DX-esque facial recognition function in the 7D2, is this also handled by the DIGIC 6 or is there a dedicated processor to handle this?

There's my silly questions. Hoping somebody can help out


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

The 5D4 will have better sensor tech, as Neuroanatomist already said. 5d, 5d ii (sensor), 5d iii (focus), 5d iv (sensor). Makes sense on a business path for Canon's release cycles. If Nikon does 4k, it'll have downsides, or if it's great, Canon will just release firmware updates on all of their cameras for 4k. Not a big deal, and do you _really_ need 4k right now? Do you have a 4k monitor and hard drive array and thunderbolt 2 system?

I predict better paper specs (more cross-type points) than the 1dx, but lower real-world accuracy than the 1dx simply because the full frame sensor gathers more light to determine autofocus. It could be very close though, who knows. The 1dx will still have its place and be worth its price, regardless, at least that's my prediction.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > And thus thee dashes mine wonderful hopes for thine 5D IV...Canon.
> ...


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> I'm sorry, but I get irritated when people comment without ever touching the products mentioned. This is what I call an "armchair commentator." I agree, my attitude could use some toning down, but I'm kind of sick and tired of comments from people with little to no experience with Canon harping about jumping ship.



simple solution... don´t read a RUMOR forum... :

you will always read "if then" postings here.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 11, 2014)

crashpc said:


> With EOS M, I really am not able to make good images at times.



I get stellar images from my M. I hesitantly decided to just take the M for a trip to Vegas shortly after I got it, and absolutely fell in love with it. Haven't had that much fun shooting the strip in a long time.

Granted, the AF is not sufficient for action. Few MILCs are in any capacity, and none of them touch the 7D much less a 5D3, 1DX, and now 7D2. But general photography? Great sensor (queue the DRoning) and awesome glass.

If you're struggling with it, maybe it's not the gear?


----------



## Tugela (Sep 11, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > then what were actually people expecting from the 7D replacement?
> ...



On the face of it, they have not paid attention to video at all, other than what happened to come with the technology they were using. We have HD 60p, because that comes with the Digic 6 hardware encoders anyway. We have PDAF, because that comes with the sensors anyway. With that hardware the video capability of this camera will not be much different from to 70D, some marginal increase in frame rates, that is all. Digic 6 video has been with us for some time in compacts, so we know what to expect, and it ain't pretty. It is pretty clear that those rumours of "advanced video features" were just hype, or were being spread by people who have no idea what "advanced video features" actually are in modern cameras.

I think for a flagship stills/video camera from Canon we might have to wait for the 70D replacement when it comes. Perhaps they would have gotten a clue by then.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 11, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



Because the video will be handled in hardware, and we already know what the Digic 6 does since it has been in P&S cameras for two years.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 11, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Digic 6...so this won't be 'generation 1' of this processor but I am trying to understand a few things about sensors.
> 
> 1. So what stays the same in order for it to remain a DIGIC 6 processor? Are there aspects of the 'architecture' that will be identical across all generations of this processor?
> 
> ...




The fist 7D had dual Digic 4 chips. The 1DX had Dual Digic 5 for processing plus an extra single Digic 4 that handled nothing but the autofocus. Hence it's ungodly precision and speed. I shot one for an entire weekend, over 8000 frames and lots a 12fps bursts. It's amazing.

If the 7D2 can match that... yeeeeha. I would think in theory you would need less processing power on a crop sensor than a full frame.

That said the Digic generations have improved exponentially. The Digic 5 have many times more processing power than the 4, the Digic 5+ having 2-3 times the power of the 5, and now the Digic 6. I haven't seen numbers compared to the 5 or 5+ but this is the FIRST DLSR body it will be used in. And not just one but 2. The Digic 6 is probably (based on previous generational history) 5-10x more powerful than 2 digic 4 chips put together. Hence my earlier theory this may be intentional overkill for this body for future upgrades.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> Are the improvements to Nikon APS-C cameras "unrealistic"? They seem to be not only realistic but highly beneficial for many photographers and types of photography. The D5300 is poised to completely topple the Canon domination of astrophotography thanks to its improved sensor and ultra low noise. The D800/810 could very likely become the first "budget" alternative to a full-blown high quality CCD camera once the black point hack is applied. And that's just in astrophotography.



When you browse astro landscapes on Flickr or 500px the key difference that stands out is format. You can generally tell a FF shot from a crop shot, especially when the FF shot is made using a fast wide prime. In this application light gathering ability rules.

You do not see any differences within formats, i.e. you can't reliably guess Canon or Nikon.

For tracked space only shots and star trails not even format seems to matter. Obviously since you are using stacking for light gathering. But for astro landscapes it stands out.

If I had to choose based entirely on astro landscapes I would take a 6D or 5D3 any day over any SoNikon crop camera. Given Canon's stellar fast wide primes, the only camera I would maybe take instead would be the Sony A7S with an EF adapter.

Again, real world vs. measurebating. Canon isn't loosing sales because the measurements you claim make all the difference in the world seem to make zero difference to the people producing stunning work on Flickr and 500px week after week after week.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > Even if it has the 70D sensor (which it may not), this does not necessarily mean similar video quality, it's all about the processing.
> ...



Yeah with dual digic 6 they should easily be able to do full sensor read without skipping and provide, at worst, 1DX 1080p video quality. It's a bit of a shame they didn't offer it 1080p RAW. One would hope they got rid of the mushy waxy DNR processing they are so fond of and expand it to at least 10bits per channel, but I doubt it.

I have a feeling 5D3 video with ML RAW will still be considerably better.
And some rumors say the D750 may offer up high-quality 4k next week.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > Even if it has the 70D sensor (which it may not), this does not necessarily mean similar video quality, it's all about the processing.
> ...



with a full sensor read it should also instantly get nearly 2 full stops better SNR for video compared to the 7D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > They are doing just fine with good dslrs featuring *mediocre* sensors and good phase af systems, at least atm. If they add a stellar live view af and good usability, what amount of people outside geek forums really care about dr (dr. what)?.
> ...



That is not true at low ISO when shooting scenes with a lot of DR. In those cases Canon is like 2-3 stops behind and that amounts to a heck of a lot more than a dime. At ISO6400 the differences are more on the order of a dime though (although a couple Canon and a few Nikon do offer an extra 1-2 stops DR at high ISO compared to the rest).


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 11, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> or you know, pictures taken in a stunning redwood forest or whatnot, but really it's the same nonsense, redwoods, lens caps, it's all the same lab geek stuff and matters to nobody who actually is an artiste and takes pictures and knows how to use a camera.... :



Please show us your redwood shots where the SoNikon sensor clearly out performed the Canon sensor. Thank you!

(I won't hold my breath : )


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 11, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> ...



But didn't the recent firmware update for the 5D3 allow for uncompressed output in RAW video? Maybe a sign for the 7D2? The specs didn't list RAW output but nothing to suggest it might now show up with it, especially if what I said about the firmware update is accurate. Am I mistaken?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> ...



I think that is actually very worrisome. Canon video already looks waxy and loses detail anywhere there is not extreme contrast differences. So if D6 just ups the wax works even more.... YECH!!!!

Now if they avoid line skipping, that could give it a REAL 2 stop SNR advantage for video over the 7D (just as the 5D3 has like 2 stops better SNR compared to the 5D2 for video). I do expect it to have that, so it should have 2 real stops better SNR than the 7D for video.

But the wax works stuff scares me and I could see even a 4k offering using so much over-processing that areas of modest contrast might hold less fine texture and detail than ML 1080p RAW from 5D3.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 11, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> That is not true at low ISO when shooting scenes with a lot of DR. In those cases Canon is like 2-3 stops behind and that amounts to a heck of a lot more than a dime.



Eagerly awaiting your real world sample photos which illustrate this ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Ironic that they lock themselves into 1080p for their wildlife camera for another 3-5 years on the same day that SanDisc announces a high-speed, high-capacity card to suit the needs of all the current and arriving 4k cams.
> ...



I think the 5D4 with 4k next spring. But it does seem to show a bit of a lack of foresight to have held it back from the 7D2. The 7D2 certainly has the processing power to handle it (it has more processing power than the 1DC). It's not killer, since it's a reach/action/stills cam, but it still seems pretty short-sighted to me and the extra reach for wildlife video guys might have been nice.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



The Digic 6 is the same generation as the Digic DV 4 chips used in Canon's current high end consumer/prosumer video camcorders, only not optimized for video as the DV chips are. The encoder capabilities are the same. Performance is not going to be all that much different. The market already has lots of experience with these chips in consumer cameras, so we should not expect capabilities that are not already here.

The technology in the new 7D2 is the technology of the last few years, not the technology of the next few years. I would guess the reason is that the camera has been in development for a long time, but has been stalled for one reason or another. It would have been an awesome camera 2 years ago, but now it just seems mildly dated. I suspect that it basically has been dumped on the market, along with bunch of hype, so they can recover their investment. I would not be at all surprised if we see more advanced cameras in the 70D line appear in the relatively near future.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Then why can't any of the DRones produce real world examples for the rest of us? :



We did in the other thread.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Again, real world vs. measurebating. Canon isn't loosing sales because the measurements you claim make all the difference in the world seem to make zero difference to the people producing stunning work on Flickr and 500px week after week after week.



with their smartphones...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> If Nikon does 4k, it'll have downsides, or if it's great, Canon will just release firmware updates on all of their cameras for 4k.



One could hope, but if marketing had them lock out 4k to begin with that just seems like more let us cripple it as much as we can and not even get out of the hardware what the hardware can do. And it's a big if to assume they will have a 4k video firmware upcoming.



> Not a big deal, and do you _really_ need 4k right now? Do you have a 4k monitor and hard drive array and thunderbolt 2 system?



4k runs just fine off of a regular HDs
although I do have a USB 3.0 raid drive too, anyway

and I do have 4k screens

And sometimes you visit amazing places and it may be a long time before you get back again, it's nicer to be able to capture it in 4k now.



> I predict better paper specs (more cross-type points) than the 1dx, but lower real-world accuracy than the 1dx simply because the full frame sensor gathers more light to determine autofocus. It could be very close though, who knows. The 1dx will still have its place and be worth its price, regardless, at least that's my prediction.



That is not how AF works. The 1DX being FF doesn't give the AF more light. They don't use the sensor for AF. And the special AF sensors don't work well if they are too large due to angles of incoming light and mount distance, etc. so the AF array sensors are basically the same size for the aps-c, aps-h and FF cameras.

So I think it will likely have all around better AF than the 1DX.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Digic 6...so this won't be 'generation 1' of this processor but I am trying to understand a few things about sensors.
> ...



The digic 4 is only used for the all points color-tracking AF mode and not for any other mode of AF.



> If the 7D2 can match that... yeeeeha. I would think in theory you would need less processing power on a crop sensor than a full frame.
> 
> That said the Digic generations have improved exponentially. The Digic 5 have many times more processing power than the 4, the Digic 5+ having 2-3 times the power of the 5, and now the Digic 6. I haven't seen numbers compared to the 5 or 5+ but this is the FIRST DLSR body it will be used in. And not just one but 2. The Digic 6 is probably (based on previous generational history) 5-10x more powerful than 2 digic 4 chips put together. Hence my earlier theory this may be intentional overkill for this body for future upgrades.



It certainly should have had the power to have driven not just non-line skipped 1080p but also 4k as well.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > or you know, pictures taken in a stunning redwood forest or whatnot, but really it's the same nonsense, redwoods, lens caps, it's all the same lab geek stuff and matters to nobody who actually is an artiste and takes pictures and knows how to use a camera.... :
> ...



I didn't have one with me on that trip. But it's easy to know what 2-3 stops better looks like and to see how that would help such a shot a lot and you can compare to other shots taken with exmor.

Maybe the DR guys wouldn't get driven to act like such pests if you your ilk wouldn't constantly toss nonsense all over the place and would be able to just admit that there is a single thing that your precious Canon is not the best at.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > or you know, pictures taken in a stunning redwood forest or whatnot, but really it's the same nonsense, redwoods, lens caps, it's all the same lab geek stuff and matters to nobody who actually is an artiste and takes pictures and knows how to use a camera.... :
> ...



And when Fred posted same shots, same time, same cam and showed a big difference then you just had more excuses for why the differnce was not really there.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

Unrealistic is to expect a 7D II to have a better sensor than a 5DIII. Why would Canon sacrifice $3500 and $6000 price points within a couple of years to go after amateurs who never invest in their pro lenses? Riddle me that. It's called staying in the business. Don't put all your tech in one basket, then everyone is going to bitch and moan that next generations don't improve on much, then camera sales will fall, and then Canon's out of business, and then all of a sudden your warranty doesn't mean jack shit. Let them shaft CPS, fast repairs, etc., b.c. you want all your goodies in one year? Ask any product engineer and what they have to deal with in the marketing departments, and you'll see what I mean. I doubt a D5300 can outshoot a 5DIII in the worst of worst lighting conditions, but be my guest. Sensor size always affects AF and IQ, not counting the several generation old cameras like the 5d classic.



jrista said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. A 7D II with enormously, unrealistically improved sensor (all the people clamoring, oooh I wish this had more DR than the 5DIII) is just plain stupid when a 5DIV hasn't been released. I think you're right, Canon will iterate with the 7D II and release their cutting edge tech in the 5D IV and 1DXII.
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



No, it allowed for uncompressed NON-raw video.
And it barely improved things in the slightest since it turns out the damage they do happens prior to h.264 encoding.

ML RAW firmware did allow for uncompressed RAW and that did boost the quality by an incredible amount.
If Canon had decided to do that for the 7D2 you'd think it would've been in the spec leak (but who knows, we'll see).


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 11, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Ahh! Much obliged. I don't really do video but I just started fooling with it on my 6D for fun. So the ML hacked 5D3 is still the bad boy


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

Don't get me wrong, I could appreciate additional dynamic range, and Canon is definitely "behind" on that development and the high megapixel cameras. But if you've been monitoring cameras for long enough, the bodies keep leapfrogging each other, but the lenses and customer support (CPS) stay constant. The 5D II used to be the high megapixel camera and the D700 the high accuracy focusing sports full frame, then Nikon and Canon switched places with the D800 and 5DIII. I'd even suspect there's some sort of conspiracy or agreement between the two companies, haha. The 5DIV or their high megapixel camera will prob swap places with Nikon, or the two will bring out their own competing product segments at different times (D750 vs Canon's high megapixel camera). Like I said, I love the DR on the D810, but there's more to a camera than just DR. Both camera systems are great, and you can't go wrong going either way. Just a few minor differences in different departments.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> ...



It's either that DIGIC chips simply stink at image processing, the Canon team has decided to turn up all sorts of stupid anti-grain/anti-noise tech and turns even ISO100 video into wax works when simpky using different settings could avoid it, or marketing has them apply some sort of gaussian filter to make it not look like their 1DC and Cxx and such video.

All I know is if you use ML RAW which bypasses almost all processing, the video quality in the 5D3 is suddenly WORLDS better, it has tons and tons more detail and even has more DR as well. ML SAVED the 5D3 for video. It took it from a nice improvement (2 stops better and not much aliasing) but all the same waxy and low in detail in a disappointing manner into able to provide some really impressive 1080p video and that made the 5D3 a video beast. Without ML though....

It is not the compression stage, since the new firmware that allows for uncompressed, but processed video on the 5D3 provides barely any image quality improvement at all.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

Canon basically condones the Magic Lantern hack for the 5DIII, because they will not allow a first party, fully supported and official RAW recording function that would obliterate their C500 sales. They're thinking long term. However, for people not backed by major studios that demand first party and reliable firmware, the 5DIII with ML is great. Canon has a cease and desist notice for any ML tampering with the 1DX, they could certainly pursue ML if they wanted to, so let's be straight about one thing, ML is allowed to survive because Canon ALLOWs it to. Do you see ML on Nikon? Wonder why? ML is a GOOD thing for Canon users, not a mark against the company.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


----------



## Northbird (Sep 11, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Price?
> ...



Seems like a reasonable range. I'm surprised given the specs it won't be priced between $2K-$2.5K.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2014)

> JJB - Don't get me wrong, I could appreciate additional dynamic range, and Canon is definitely "behind" on that development and the high megapixel cameras. But if you've been monitoring cameras for long enough, the bodies keep leapfrogging each other, but the lenses and customer support (CPS) stay constant. The 5D II used to be the high megapixel camera and the D700 the high accuracy focusing sports full frame, then Nikon and Canon switched places with the D800 and 5DIII. I'd even suspect there's some sort of conspiracy or agreement between the two companies, haha. The 5DIV or their high megapixel camera will prob swap places with Nikon, or the two will bring out their own competing product segments at different times (D750 vs Canon's high megapixel camera). Like I said, I love the DR on the D810, but there's more to a camera than just DR. Both camera systems are great, and you can't go wrong going either way. Just a few minor differences in different departments.



True, but the thing that is becoming concerning is that they don't seem to be leap frogging for sensor quality anymore. Canon hasn't improved DR one single bit at low ISO since the release of the 1Ds3. Pretty soon it will be a decade of zero improvement (and, in fact, they actually got worse and worse for low ISO DR over most of that time frame, only with the 6D did they get back to or maybe just slightly exceed the 1Ds3) and yet other makers have improved 3-4 stops over that time (and are now 2-3 ahead of Canon).

How long do we wait?
We thought the 5D3 might fix it, it didn't. We thought the 70D, it didn't.

I still have hope for the 5D4, but I'm no longer super sure about it, but if even that doesn't do it....


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

Video codecs have always been there on DSLR's so the still camera companies don't take a huge shit on the video camera companies. Why would a video camera company want to sell the tech in their $12,000 and $20,000 cameras for some little guy who will make a couple of movies for fun? When another company in Canon's range, i.e. Nikon releases a competing feature (i.e. uncompressed HDMI) in video, Canon will answer it in a firmware update. Otherwise, why take a shit on the company for something its competitors don't even offer? A GH4 is a 2x crop sensor. Blackmagic is a 3.2x or 6x crop sensor (I'm not exactly sure on the black magic, but it's pretty cropped in when I used it as a director of photography on set). A RED sells for fucking $20000 with mandatory accessories. How is Canon responsible for giving you something that no other company does at that price point? I get that more features is nicer, but you kinda get what you pay for. Built-in ND filters, matteboxes, zebra stripes, etc., these are more important to a filmmaker and you have to pay a premium anyways. Don't get me wrong, I would appreciate all the features you're asking for spec-wise, but you have to understand Canon from a business standpoint in regard to the rest of the industry! Jump ship if you really think Nikon gives you better video! (Hint, it doesn't! Why do you think so few filmmakers and wedding videographers shoot with it? You can't change the aperture, etc. while in live view [you have to switch it off, change settings, then turn it back on] on all cameras except the recent D810!). Have you tried a d3200 for video? It sucks!!



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 11, 2014)

Now I wait for the next 1D/5D. If neither of them are over 40MP then I'll get the 7DII.
Except if they bump something up to 32MP and keep the FPS and AF performance near 1DX levels, that would still be an amazing camera, but I won't sacrifice AF performance for just a moderate increase in pixel density.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> Video codecs have always been there on DSLR's so the still camera companies don't take a huge S___ on the video camera companies. Why would a video camera company want to sell the tech in their $12,000 and $20,000 cameras for some little guy who will make a couple of movies for fun? When another company in Canon's range, i.e. Nikon releases a competing feature (i.e. uncompressed HDMI) in video, Canon will answer it in a firmware update. Otherwise, why take a S___ on the company for something its competitors don't even offer? A GH4 is a 2x crop sensor. Blackmagic is a 3.2x or 6x crop sensor (I'm not exactly sure on the black magic, but it's pretty cropped in when I used it as a director of photography on set). A RED sells for F______ $20000 with mandatory accessories. How is Canon responsible for giving you something that no other company does at that price point? I get that more features is nicer, but you kinda get what you pay for. Built-in ND filters, matteboxes, zebra stripes, etc., these are more important to a filmmaker and you have to pay a premium anyways. Don't get me wrong, I would appreciate all the features you're asking for spec-wise, but you have to understand Canon from a business standpoint in regard to the rest of the industry! Jump ship if you really think Nikon gives you better video! (Hint, it doesn't! Why do you think so few filmmakers and wedding videographers shoot with it? You can't change the aperture, etc. while in live view [you have to switch it off, change settings, then turn it back on] on all cameras except the recent D810!). Have you tried a d3200 for video? It sucks!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We need Squirrels too if this quoting goes on.


----------



## crashpc (Sep 11, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> Wow, you have an EOS M. You're SOOO invested. You must know about ALL the great lenses, flash and understanding light. Real pro, dude. True, the sensor on the EOS M (price of $200-300 means that's the best sensor for the paltry money) is better than its af. But you really can't compare systems until you've tried them both. I've used both the full frame Canon and Nikon systems (D700,800, D3, 5DIII, 16-400mm in f/2.8 lenses and f/1.2 and f/1.4 prime lenses on both), and there are upsides and downsides to both. Focus accuracy is way better on Canon. Dynamic range is better on Nikon. They're neck and neck, and harping about Canon's dr is limiting your scope. Both systems are good, but a D7100 without a F______ good lens is a dumb decision. Pay attention to lenses and lighting gear, and you'll get much better results than fapping off to the latest body that will probably empty your budget (if you're on an EOS M, I don't think you can afford a D7100, 24-70 f/2.8G and 70-200G VR II right off the bat). And if you're on Nikon, you WILL want one of their full frame lenses as their APS-C lenses are complete S___.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow this topic flows fast...
No, you really don´t know my situation. I had SL1 before, I had different things before, I tried many DSLRs (all Canons up to 5D III) from my friends, I can even borrow L lenses for free, but I want to go mirrorless, and moderately smaller. I shoot primes Have 50mm f/1,4, 22mm f/2, sold some zooms, saving for 135mm f/2 L. That way you missed my point and stucked yourself on stuff that has nothing to do with anything, just poor deduction. I´d be happy to stay with Canon because I can borrow very expensive gear, but I don´t like what do they do today. I can put better stuff in use even if I absolutely don´t need it. I just want, and when I see Sony can deliver (at least Nikon with Sony sensor), it is valid point. I also like Nikon ergonomics very much. Canon doesn´t feel THAT good in my hands.


----------



## schmidtfilme (Sep 11, 2014)

These are the least exciting specs I saw on a new camera for a while in particular if I look at Sonys specs.

I cannot believe it took Canon 5 years. What are they actually doing in their R&D labs? Sleeping?


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

Product cycles have always been long. Again, the major complaint about the 5dII when it was released was the autofocus. When the 5DIII came out, the goal post got moved by netizens to dynamic range. 3-4 years is typical for the big two (Canon and Nikon). Sony and Fujifilm iterate much faster because they're new players and they have to. But they don't have the full lens lineup or professional service support yet either, so that's their only competitive edge (they need it to even make any leeway). In the process, you get half-assed products (sometimes!) like the Black Magic Cinema Cameras (2.5k and pocket) with lots of malfunctions and products. But yeah, I get what you mean, I do envy the DR on sony cameras, and if they had more lenses and I had more money, I'd get them to play with on the weekend or shoot as a third camera at a wedding. Be patient, Canon WILL bring out the product you want. If you have unlimited income, buy the other company's products, but you WILL lose a tremendous amount of money selling your system because you couldn't wait a couple of years for a new body. And really, the rumor expectations will always let you down, just know that Canon will release better sensor tech when they're finished upgrading their lenses (makes sense, right? upgrade your lens system before you pump out a sensor that outresolves all of them, right?).



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> > JJB - Don't get me wrong, I could appreciate additional dynamic range, and Canon is definitely "behind" on that development and the high megapixel cameras. But if you've been monitoring cameras for long enough, the bodies keep leapfrogging each other, but the lenses and customer support (CPS) stay constant. The 5D II used to be the high megapixel camera and the D700 the high accuracy focusing sports full frame, then Nikon and Canon switched places with the D800 and 5DIII. I'd even suspect there's some sort of conspiracy or agreement between the two companies, haha. The 5DIV or their high megapixel camera will prob swap places with Nikon, or the two will bring out their own competing product segments at different times (D750 vs Canon's high megapixel camera). Like I said, I love the DR on the D810, but there's more to a camera than just DR. Both camera systems are great, and you can't go wrong going either way. Just a few minor differences in different departments.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

Sony's specs are great...until you shoot with wide aperture luxury primes or NCAA Div I sports. All of a sudden their 10-12 fps look like shit when your in-focus shots are 2-8 out of 10-12 (might apply more to some mirrorless bragging about fps, don't recall the exacts), and you missed the game winning touchdown. Specs are worthless when your real-world results are subpar. Go to any major NCAA Div I or NFL game and tell me if you see ONE Sony supertelephoto on the field. Didn't think so. If you do, it's pretty rare, at the very least, and for good reason.



schmidtfilme said:


> These are the least exciting specs I saw on a new camera for a while in particular if I look at Sonys specs.
> 
> I cannot believe it took Canon 5 years. What are they actually doing in their R&D labs? Sleeping?


----------



## CaiLeDao (Sep 11, 2014)

To me it looks like the rumour sites have just announced the most radical sensor for some time (from Canon).
All things do point to this being a foveon style sensor so each site is reading RGB +IR. The new limits on the ISO support this concept as RGB pixel sites are much deeper so you get more fall of in the light reading hence lower ISO limits. Restricted ISO makes sense to the physics of an RGB sensor.

If this is really what we see then the sensor is effectively a 60MP bayer sensor so would produce quite big images. That may also explain the limitations of video in that you would really struggle to process and downsample the dates rates necessary to produce hi quality video. Maybe that is a natural limitation of the higher volumes of sensor data.

Again if the rumours prove correct, as said by others earlier this will be a landmark camera and I am really interested in what the real announcements deliver. I hope it is an RGB sensor and they have improved noise handling with on sensor chip ADC(s), which for current sensors is the issue with DR I will then become an owner.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

CaiLeDao said:


> To me it looks like the rumour sites have just announced the most radical sensor for some time (from Canon).
> All things do point to this being a foveon style sensor so each site is reading RGB +IR.



So, you're saying that the *metering sensor* will take great, Foveon-style images? :

The image sensor is the standard Bayer-masked, AA-filtered CMOS sensor...


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

Do you make money from your photography? True, Canon doesn't do mirrorless that well now. It's just a matter of time before Canon and Nikon pay attention to it with great products, but for now they see sales in DSLR's still sustaining them, so you may look into another mirrorless camera system if you're shooting for fun or your own pleasure, more power to you. Expect to pay $1000+ for a decent mirrorless camera and another $800-1500 for decent lenses. Let's be real here, a $200-300 EOS M doesn't compete with an OMD or an Xt1 or a7/s/r. Btw, does your friend shoot with a 70-200 IS II, a supertelephoto or any of Canon's L primes? If not, you really haven't seen the 5DIII in its full potential. The 50 1.4 while good for beginner standards is pretty outdated.

I OWN the 135L and off topic, I really stress that this lens is best enjoyed on full frame. You really need good glass to appreciate Canon and Nikon cameras, let alone any camera system. That means 85LII, Sigma 35, Sigma 50, Canon 24LII, not any of Canon's older lenses like 35L, 50L, 85non-L(it's good, but too much CA and not as accurate as 135L at AF), plus their mark II f/2.8 zooms, 16-35f/4L, mark II supertelephotos, etc. They are LIGHTYEARS ahead of things like Nikon's 58mm f/1.4, although Nikon offers competitive offerings in their f/2.8 zooms and supertele's.

Yeah, ergo's are subjective, but I feel ya brah, I liked Nikon for a while. Stick with their pro controls on their D300,700-800,3-4's, and you are solid if you go that route. Their D90-style controls on the D7000,7100, and 600/610 are not my cup of tea and not in any way a leg up over Canon's equivalent pro control competitors (7D,5DIII,1D).



crashpc said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, you have an EOS M. You're SOOO invested. You must know about ALL the great lenses, flash and understanding light. Real pro, dude. True, the sensor on the EOS M (price of $200-300 means that's the best sensor for the paltry money) is better than its af. But you really can't compare systems until you've tried them both. I've used both the full frame Canon and Nikon systems (D700,800, D3, 5DIII, 16-400mm in f/2.8 lenses and f/1.2 and f/1.4 prime lenses on both), and there are upsides and downsides to both. Focus accuracy is way better on Canon. Dynamic range is better on Nikon. They're neck and neck, and harping about Canon's dr is limiting your scope. Both systems are good, but a D7100 without a F______ good lens is a dumb decision. Pay attention to lenses and lighting gear, and you'll get much better results than fapping off to the latest body that will probably empty your budget (if you're on an EOS M, I don't think you can afford a D7100, 24-70 f/2.8G and 70-200G VR II right off the bat). And if you're on Nikon, you WILL want one of their full frame lenses as their APS-C lenses are complete S___.
> ...


----------



## Vgramatikov (Sep 11, 2014)

To much talking here.

1. Nobody will buy a 7d ii instead of 6d for portraits, landscape, studio work and so one.
2. Nobody will but 6d for sport, action and wildlife photography.

(when i say nobody mean most of the normal thinking people)

3. Before a year there was no 7d competitor for sport, wildlife action crop camera.
-Now we have pentax k-3 and Alfa but who cares about them they do not have the system/lenses.
-Mirrorless are useless for sport and action and they do not have the lens to.

4.Nikon have some...d7100 with weak buffer and slow frame rate.7d and 70d are better like cameras but yes weaker like sensor IQ but only at base iso/DR who cares for sports and wildlife AF performance ,frame rate and buffer is much important.

SO? 

7d ii come in time that even the 7d and 70d almost do not have real competition like camera system and performance.

7d ii is ground breaking crop body for sports and wildlife with the 10 fps, this new af module and the ITR.

So that whats up....

May be we all needed just a better sensor from Canon. This part missing to many years. But 70d is not bad at all...it will be enough just 7d ii to be little better ))


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

Sorry about my blabbing, I really want a 1dx on this forum . Simple and well-stated.



Vgramatikov said:


> To much talking here.
> 
> 1. Nobody will buy a 7d ii instead of 6d for portraits, landscape, studio work and so one.
> 2. Nobody will but 6d for sport, action and wildlife photography.
> ...


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 11, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > That is not true at low ISO when shooting scenes with a lot of DR. In those cases Canon is like 2-3 stops behind and that amounts to a heck of a lot more than a dime.
> ...



So am I. I hope the prove is not DxO scores though. I challenge anyone to find me an example where the 70D's sensor is outperformed by any APS-C sensor from any manufacturer by 1 full stop in terms of anything, lowlight performance, dynamic range at any ISO, and resolution. Just one stop, not 2 or 3 as you people claim. 


____________________________________

Regarding video: Do we know anything about the 7D's video to the point of determining it's a bad video camera and crippled and not suitable as a hybrid? 

No. We don't know squad about the 7D's video. Nothing. Just that it does 60p. that's it. 

The factors that will determine whether this is an awesome video camera or nor are all unknown:
What exactly is the sensor? 
How does the camera downscale the full resolution to 1080p? Line skipping or pixel binning? 
How does the processor compress the feed to H.264, what's the codec, bit rate, 90mbits ALL I or higher, or less? 
How fast does it read the sensor lines for the rolling shutter effect? 
Does it have a clean HDMI output? Or not? 
Does it have a headphone jack, good preamps? Are the audio meters controlled whilst recording or just prior to? 
Is reading the sensor at 60p going to introduce worse IQ than normal speed, or will it be just as good for slowmotion? 
Are the new processor affecting the noise performance by two stops as Canon claims? Are they affecting the downsampling process therefore the detail?
How well does the autofocus work in video mode?

Come on this is just getting ridiculous, you're concluding somehow that it's bad and crippled for video based on having 60p? That's all you've got about the 7D mk II video mode! 

and concerning 4K, just because it's not 4K doesn't mean it's a bad video camera. This is ridiculous. 4K is the next step forward but there still is a place for a great 1080p camera in the market for the next few years. 

What is the most successful camera in the video world? The Canon C300. It dominates the broadcast/news/rournalism industry, and the documentary world. Is it a 4K camera? No. 1080p. It does perfect 1080p. And the highest-end professionals are fine with that, but not consumers on the forums, for some reason. 
Another example, the Arri Alexa? The most successful cinrma camera in the industry. All the films you see in cinema are shot on the Alexa, is it 4K? No. 2K. The Arri Amira, which is a 60 thousand dollars professional camera that's announced this year, is it 4K? No, 1080p. Yet it's creating the biggest interest among video professionals, but not us. 1080p is too little for us. 

All things being equal, do I want 4K vs. 1080p? I do. It's better.
But all things are rarely equal, and many times perfectly done 1080p is way better than poorly done 4K. A GH4 at 4K is not a better video image than a 1080p C300. Not by any means. There are MANY different aspects to image quality than just resolution. There is dynamic range, sensor size, noise charachter and pattern, high ISO performance, colour depth, colour science, etc. 

There are certain things the 7D need to nail to be a great video camera, but 4K is not one of them. There still IS a place for a great 1080p camera other wise they wouldn't be selling 1080p cameras at 10K$ to 60K$! 
Just give me a perfect 1080p image on the 7D mk II and I am VERY happy. The sensor size in the 7D is more suitable for video/cinema applications than the 5DIII, APS-C equals super 35mm which is the absolute professional standard in the video world. I want the 7D to be a perfect s35 video camera upgrade for all Canon video shooters. It really makes sense. But we don't know a thing. Nothing.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

Sounds like you know your stuff about video. Very good points on how 4k is not necessarily better than 2k, and well-articulated to include the nuanced differences of what makes or breaks a video camera.



Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> Nikon's autofocus is better in the dark because of their built-in af-assist light, and their autofocus points blink red compared to *the 1dx system which stays black*.



Have you used a 1D X? You can turn on red AF point illumination if you want, all the time or auto (they light up only when the camera think the light level is dim enough to warrant it). In AI Servo mode, they blink on and off as the camera focuses.


----------



## that1guyy (Sep 11, 2014)

I'm laughing at the people saying its a new sensor. Makes no sense to have a new fabrication process and keep the same pixel count. From a marketing perspective, it is a nightmare. It is the same sensor as the 70D maybe with some software tweaks. Overall quite disappointing for five years of work.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

Oh schnap. Now I want one. I only have the 5D Mark III and they didn't release the same firmware fix to it as they did with the 1Dx, probably because of hardware limitations. I'll get a chance to use a 1DX in a couple months when I start shooting some rehearsals as primary. Thanks for the ultra-helpful info, neuro!



neuroanatomist said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon's autofocus is better in the dark because of their built-in af-assist light, and their autofocus points blink red compared to *the 1dx system which stays black*.
> ...


----------



## Vgramatikov (Sep 11, 2014)

I do not need more DR.

www.500px.com/vgramatikov

I need better lens if i can afford it. 

Good luck!


----------



## crashpc (Sep 11, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> Do you make money from your photography? True, Canon doesn't do mirrorless that well now. It's just a matter of time before Canon and Nikon pay attention to it with great products, but for now they see sales in DSLR's still sustaining them, so you may look into another mirrorless camera system if you're shooting for fun or your own pleasure, more power to you. Expect to pay $1000+ for a decent mirrorless camera and another $800-1500 for decent lenses. Let's be real here, a $200-300 EOS M doesn't compete with an OMD or an Xt1 or a7/s/r. Btw, does your friend shoot with a 70-200 IS II, a supertelephoto or any of Canon's L primes? If not, you really haven't seen the 5DIII in its full potential. The 50 1.4 while good for beginner standards is pretty outdated.
> 
> I OWN the 135L and off topic, I really stress that this lens is best enjoyed on full frame. You really need good glass to appreciate Canon and Nikon cameras, let alone any camera system. That means 85LII, Sigma 35, Sigma 50, Canon 24LII, not any of Canon's older lenses like 35L, 50L, 85non-L(it's good, but too much CA and not as accurate as 135L at AF), plus their mark II f/2.8 zooms, 16-35f/4L, mark II supertelephotos, etc. They are LIGHTYEARS ahead of things like Nikon's 58mm f/1.4, although Nikon offers competitive offerings in their f/2.8 zooms and supertele's.
> 
> Yeah, ergo's are subjective, but I feel ya brah, I liked Nikon for a while. Stick with their pro controls on their D300,700-800,3-4's, and you are solid if you go that route. Their D90-style controls on the D7000,7100, and 600/610 are not my cup of tea and not in any way a leg up over Canon's equivalent pro control competitors (7D,5DIII,1D).


No, I don´t make money with my gear. What does that mean? Cannot I have good cam, good car, sharp knife or whatever? Where is this going?

Yes, I´d like to have better Canon mirrorless. I shoot more than for fun, I just don´t get money from my job, and I believe for what I really need from that cam I all have it already (product photography with lower requirements on quality). For my work, I can only put in use the glass and the sensor for stills. I don´t care about anything else. That way OM-D and X-T1 with additional value, better settings, controls, handling and stuff is NO better than that poor EOS M in my eyes. Sony A7R is different beast for me...
As far as I know, my friend shoots only L lenses. Haven´t seen any non Canon and any without red ring in his "bag". But I don´t have to own it to see what it can do, right? 

Maybe I should keep the M for mobility and buy bigger cam for "real work", but I don´t know. Kinda "didn´t find myself yet". 6D would be cool, but it´s quite big. Then I also hope for FF cam in EOS XXXD package and size...

About the lenses: Once there is AA filter, it´s not that visible, but once you see moire in the image (where it should be), the lens clearly outresolves the sensor. That way I´m pretty sure all of these older primes are still very usable, and we really need better sensor, as it is waaaay cheaper to have ONCE, while you need to buy best lens (anyway) for milking that not really stellar sensor, no matter what format it is. With 18MPx Canon sensor I´m sure that with primes the sensor is clearly that weaker point. Best lenses would help of course, but not enaugh in this case.


----------



## gsealy (Sep 11, 2014)

Clean HDMI out would make a difference for me. I also agree with video comments below. We have yet to learn a lot about the camera's video functionality. 




joejohnbear said:


> Sounds like you know your stuff about video. Very good points on how 4k is not necessarily better than 2k, and well-articulated to include the nuanced differences of what makes or breaks a video camera.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## unfocused (Sep 11, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Maybe the DR guys wouldn't get driven to act like such pests if you your ilk wouldn't constantly toss nonsense all over the place and would be able to just admit that there is a single thing that your precious Canon is not the best at.



My Canon is not precious. It's just a frigg'n camera. And, I have no problem admitting that there are differences between all brands and no brand is better at everything. 

But, I for one, get very annoyed at people who are fixated on their one favorite thing and insist that it should be the ultimate determinate of quality in any product...that seem to think that anyone who doesn't see it their way is somehow less discerning...and that if a company doesn't happen to emphasize their little fixation, then the company is ******* and anyone who doesn't agree must be crushed under encyclopedic posts that repeat the same worn-out whines over and over again and again.

Furthermore, as a long time reader of this site, I know that whatever changes Canon may make it its products, it won't ever silence the critics. 

When Canon offered the cameras with the highest pixel counts in the world, we endured endless posts about how all Canon cared about was megapixel count. Until Canon switched it strategy and started emphasizing ISO performance over high megapixels. Now we get complaints about Canon not having enough megapixels.

At one point, the complainers targeted autofocus. Then, when Canon started providing the best autofocus of any camera on the market, that suddenly became unimportant.

In recent months, the critics have become fixated with "dynamic range." It's simply the latest thing to complain about. But the funny thing is that with each generation of improvements, the areas to complain about become increasingly narrow and esoteric.

When we point out that the market doesn't agree with your assessment, the reaction is "we don't care how many cameras they sell, we just want our personal needs met, even if no one else cares about what we want." 

So, I'm more than happy to admit that there are many things my camera is not the best at. Now, will you please admit that hardly anyone gives a rat's rear end about the things you find to complain about.


----------



## gsealy (Sep 11, 2014)

Has anyone heard about the shutter counter rating? I assume it is 200K+.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 11, 2014)

Video side of this piece... yeah it would just be nice to get RAW output as we discussed earlier. But that is very unlikely. 4k Whatever. If the compression is so bad internally that it sucks anyway, who cares. ;-)


----------



## jasonsim (Sep 11, 2014)

Just as I posted in earlier threads. Same old sensor from 70D and priced around the same as the last 7D at launch (that was 1699.00). Sucks that we waited so long in anticipation for this? Nikon has had 24MP Dx sensors for years! 

There might still be hope if the thing can focus like a 1Dx.

Lets see.

-Jason


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 11, 2014)

unfocused said:


> But, I for one, get very annoyed at people who are fixated on their one favorite thing and insist that it should be the ultimate determinate of quality in any product...that seem to think that anyone who doesn't see it their way is somehow less discerning...and that if a company doesn't happen to emphasize their little fixation, then the company is ******* and anyone who doesn't agree must be crushed under encyclopedic posts that repeat the same worn-out whines over and over again and again.
> 
> Furthermore, as a long time reader of this site, I know that whatever changes Canon may make it its products, it won't ever silence the critics.



+1

I am on record as saying that as long as the 7D2 has a greatly improved AF system to the 7D, that I will pick one up. My expectations are that everything else will be marginally improved over the 70D. The specs so far are that my expectations are slightly exceeded.... but we shall know for sure once the real specs are announced....

So far it looks like I will be getting one, and voting with the wallet is far more meaningful than internet gripes.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 11, 2014)

jasonsim said:


> Just as I posted in earlier threads. Same old sensor from 70D and priced around the same as the last 7D at launch



The thing is.... we don't know yet!

It is quite possible that Canon is using the exact same design for the photocells on the sensor, yet has moved the A/D on chip..... and that would give far better noise performance. 

Until the real announcement is made and someone looks at the images, everything is rumour and supposition. Facts are absent.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

Reliability of equipment, i.e. consistent acquisition of autofocus, is more important if you're paid to shoot and expected to turn around with a certain product or service within a limited amount of time.

Do you mean product photography with less features? I'm sure commercial product photography requires great IQ, but shooting for an ebay business against a white backdrop doesn't as much.

So you're into the sensor. If you can afford the a7r, then go for it. The other cameras are good enough for plenty of people. No need to complain why the EOS M doesn't give you the same quality as a $2000 camera.

Not all L lenses are created equal. If he shoots with 17-40 f/4 and older lenses, they're not quite the same as the sharp primes. Red ring is just a bare minimum.

Define your "work" and then go with the camera that lets you do your work best. It's simple as that. An EOS M and a DSLR is way cheaper than a full pro mirrorless setup (or awkward manual focus adapters) that would necessitate you buy new lenses instead of continuing to use your friend's. Nothing's going to give you better IQ in a compact package than an EOS M and a 22mm STM for $200-300 any time soon.

There is a huge difference between individual lenses, regardless of the AA filter. If you can pixel peep and tell the difference on a Nikon or Pentax AA-free camera, like I said, spend your money switching systems and stop complaining. You'll be more than happy with the test charts.

It's usually lens first, then sensor. If you go the opposite way, you're wasting the potential of the sensor, and you may as well just have bought a cheaper camera body to start with. When was moire a good thing? You have some funny priorities. Up to you though. If you want to spend more time in post-process on eliminating moire, go for it. Or if you just like the look, more power to you, leave it in the photo. If you don't have a client to worry about, your opinion is more important than anyone else's. That's the luxury of having a different income source than photography.











gsealy said:


> Clean HDMI out would make a difference for me. I also agree with video comments below. We have yet to learn a lot about the camera's video functionality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 11, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jasonsim said:
> 
> 
> > Just as I posted in earlier threads. Same old sensor from 70D and priced around the same as the last 7D at launch
> ...



Bingo!! It's been said several times in official CR rumor posts that it is not the same chip. And if it were, you're now pairing it with, what? 10x the processing power? Yeah it's 20.2MP, but that doesn't mean it's identical or even just a "minor tweak". Just wait and see. If it is, then we can all bitch and moan together about it. That aside, the autofocus system is intriguing enough for what I would buy it for, but this sucker is gonna show a lot better than what some people on here on giving it credit for based purely on what us still effectively hearsay right now. Chill. Wait. 8)


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 11, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> ...but this sucker is gonna show a lot better than what some people on here on giving it credit for based purely on what us still effectively hearsay right now. Chill. Wait. 8)



I would argue that it's not going to be "a lot better" based on the fact that the maximum ISO was increased by "only" 1/3 of a stop. If the sensor were "a lot better", I'd expect to see the maximum ISO go up by 1 stop or so.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 11, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Then why can't any of the DRones produce real world examples for the rest of us? :
> ...



Because so many photographers severely underexpose Diet Coke boxes then push 3 stops with no NR :

Try again.


----------



## x-vision (Sep 11, 2014)

that1guyy said:


> I'm laughing at the people saying its a new sensor. Makes no sense to have a new fabrication process and keep the same pixel count. From a marketing perspective, it is a nightmare. It is the same sensor as the 70D maybe with some software tweaks. Overall quite disappointing for five years of work.



+1000


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 11, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I didn't have one with me on that trip.



Please stop making these claims until you have these shots.



> But it's easy to know what 2-3 stops better looks like



No it's not. The human eye is terrible at judging scene DR precisely because it's so amazing at capturing everything and leveling out a scene regardless of DR.

Don't beg the question. Post photos. Don't have photos? Then stop complaining until you do.



> Maybe the DR guys wouldn't get driven to act like such pests if you your ilk wouldn't constantly toss nonsense all over the place



YOU DON'T HAVE PHOTOS. Until you HAVE photos that clearly back up your claims it is you who is posting nonsense.

Photo up or shut up.


----------



## x-vision (Sep 11, 2014)

EchoLocation said:


> I see no reason why this camera wasn't released two years ago... max, one year ago.
> While this is a nice camera, it is long, long overdue(7D was released in '09.)
> It seems Canon is dragging their heels as slowly as possible on releasing technology in new bodies.
> At this point, it's not really so much impressive, as simply.... expected.



+1000


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 11, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> And when Fred posted same shots, same time, same cam and showed a big difference then you just had more excuses for why the differnce was not really there.



Fred who? Miranda? When you use NR on the Canon RAW the difference is inconsequential. While pixel peeping the hard pushed sample the Nikon file had a little more detail and less noise. But the actual DR range was the same, and you would be hard pressed to notice detail/noise differences even in a large print. Especially since the scene was artificial as you would never push the shadows that hard in that example.

Your side by side redwood examples that are evidence for your conclusion of a 2-3 stop shortfall, please. Because absent those you are wasting everyone's time.


----------



## RickWagoner (Sep 11, 2014)

Upon reading the specs i must admit the AF at F8 thing if true would be amazing! Actually it would be a birders dream and if it is fast enough it may be worth the $2k price alone. 

400mm 5.6 + 1.4 ii Extender + AF f8 + 10fps + large buffer = Bird photography love fest! 


I guess i'll just buy a Camranger later.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Sep 11, 2014)

Vgramatikov said:


> To much talking here.
> 
> 1. Nobody will buy a 7d ii instead of 6d for portraits, landscape, studio work and so one.
> 2. Nobody will but 6d for sport, action and wildlife photography.
> ...



I'm going to disagree. 

That's the thing...I shoot wildlife/sports/action photography. I use a T2i right now when I'm shooting with a crop. Know why? My glass is all Canon. If it wasn't for that I'd have switched. The 70D offers absolutely no improvement in image quality over the T2i. It's the same flippin sensor, just using new technologies to squeeze a .001% image quality improvement out of it. Now this is coming out with the SAME F'ING SENSOR. The sensor is about 80% of the reason you'd buy a camera, once you choose your subject matter. The 7Dii is going to be a glorified T2i. Same old ancient sensor technology, with a few useless bells & whistles, none of which get down to the root: THEY HAVEN'T MADE A SINGLE INNOVATION IN SENSOR TECHNOLOGY IN YEARS. It's the same mediocre sensor, just rehashed. This is why they're starting to, or will continue to lose market share to other companies. Absolutely insane that it took a half decade to refresh, and it's basically going to be the exact same camera with the exact same sensor, just with a tiiiiny bit extra squeezed out of that sensor. Absolute garbage. I can't tell you how pissed off I am right now.


----------



## x-vision (Sep 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> There were a lot of us, however, who were hoping the 7D II would give us an indication that Canon has been pushing the envelope regarding their overall sensor IQ.



+1000

That's exactly why the 7DII is disappointing. 
Yes, the specs are fantastic. 
But out of the gate, the image quality is already lagging behind the competition.

And this is Canon's flagship 1.6x camera - with expected shelf-life of 3-5 years.
The image quality of this camera is already unexciting in 2014. Imagine in 2019 ??


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 11, 2014)

AccipiterQ said:


> The 70D offers absolutely no improvement in image quality over the T2i. It's the same flippin sensor, just using new technologies to squeeze a .001% image quality improvement out of it.



Well, the T2i has a maximum ISO of 6400, the 70D 12,800 and apparently the 7DII is 16,000. Looking at the test images from the 70D, I'd say it's better than the T2i. I'm not sure it's a whole stop, but it's better. Presumably, this one will be up to 1/3 of a stop better than that.

BTW, I have a T2i.


----------



## x-vision (Sep 11, 2014)

crashpc said:


> Sensor, sensor, sensor. I still hope they managed to make it better, but I won´t upgrade in something what´s *already years old, to use it for another 4-6 years*. Not a chance.



+1000


----------



## Perio (Sep 11, 2014)

"New 65-point AF, all points cross-type"

This is sweet


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

+10bajallionthousand /s

Go shoot with a D7100 or a D400 and stfu. The 7D still is the best aps-c camera with a decent lens system for field sports. They don't have a competitor on the market with LENSES to match. The D7100 is basically a 70D. The D400 hasn't been released for a while. When the D400 comes out, THEN let's talk instead of bitching and moaning.



x-vision said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > There were a lot of us, however, who were hoping the 7D II would give us an indication that Canon has been pushing the envelope regarding their overall sensor IQ.
> ...


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 11, 2014)

everyone believes the rumour where it says the sensor size is 20.2 megapixels
nobody believes the rumour where it says that it is not the same sensor as the 70D

and people are already condemning it, sight unseen.

Closed minds and pre-judgement.... way to go people! Try waiting for a week for a real announcement and facts before you go off on a hissy fit.....


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

x-vision said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > There were a lot of us, however, who were hoping the 7D II would give us an indication that Canon has been pushing the envelope regarding their overall sensor IQ.
> ...



and no 4k video. ;(

even when someone don´t need 4K video yet, most people who know what they are doing will love the ability to downsample to full hd.

and all the years it was rumored to be THE VIDEO DSLR. ???

people complained that canon focuses too much on video.
and now.. video looks like it´s unimportant for canon.
sensor probably the same as 70D, all they really do is pushing the AF performance.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 11, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> sensor probably the same as 70D, all they really do is pushing the AF performance.



And frame rate (still and video), and build quality, and providing a head-phone jack, and probably other things we don't know about yet. Of course, you're losing the T/S LCD, the touch screen and WiFi.


----------



## FEBS (Sep 11, 2014)

AccipiterQ said:


> I'm going to disagree.
> 
> That's the thing...I shoot wildlife/sports/action photography. I use a T2i right now when I'm shooting with a crop. Know why? My glass is all Canon. If it wasn't for that I'd have switched. The 70D offers absolutely no improvement in image quality over the T2i. It's the same flippin sensor, just using new technologies to squeeze a .001% image quality improvement out of it. Now this is coming out with the SAME F'ING SENSOR. The sensor is about 80% of the reason you'd buy a camera, once you choose your subject matter. The 7Dii is going to be a glorified T2i. Same old ancient sensor technology, with a few useless bells & whistles, none of which get down to the root: THEY HAVEN'T MADE A SINGLE INNOVATION IN SENSOR TECHNOLOGY IN YEARS. It's the same mediocre sensor, just rehashed. This is why they're starting to, or will continue to lose market share to other companies. Absolutely insane that it took a half decade to refresh, and it's basically going to be the exact same camera with the exact same sensor, just with a tiiiiny bit extra squeezed out of that sensor. Absolute garbage. I can't tell you how pissed off I am right now.



Don't let me laugh. The reason you bought a T2i as a camera for wildlife/sports/action photography is for sure NOT the sensor. *Be honest, it was the price*. 

What a thought that the sensor would be 80% responsible for the purchase of such a camera. If sensor quality would be that important to you, then you would have bought a 1-series. Nothing else. What a bullsh_t you are telling here. And what about the 5D3 sensor? No progress made?

As a wildlife/sports/action photographer you are not interested in those fps, 65 crosspoints AF, f8, ... ? You really make me laugh man, don't call yourself a action photographer if you are only interested in the highest quality sensor.

If you have that good Canon glass that you can't change, then simple do buy a 1Dx and stop complaining and stop telling such a nonsense !!!


----------



## Steve (Sep 11, 2014)

AccipiterQ said:


> Absolute garbage. I can't tell you how pissed off I am right now.



Rock it. Love the passion.

Seriously though, maybe look into a used 1DIV. Better sensor plus all the frame bursts and autofocusers you could ever want. Its like the 7DII that was released 5 years ago!


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 11, 2014)

AccipiterQ said:


> THEY HAVEN'T MADE A SINGLE INNOVATION IN SENSOR TECHNOLOGY IN YEARS.



DPAF


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> AccipiterQ said:
> 
> 
> > THEY HAVEN'T MADE A SINGLE INNOVATION IN SENSOR TECHNOLOGY IN YEARS.
> ...



done by others before. phase af on sensor i mean.
ok that´s maybe a bit unfair as those hybrid AF´s are different.

but i don´t see much of a benefit of DPAF yet to be honest.

that could be a thing the 7D MK2 pushes a big step forward.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 11, 2014)

Hah, spot on, FEBS.

I used to have a personal t2i that I'd use alongside a D300 for sports, and I call bullshit on Accipter's claim as well that he shoots wildlife/sports/action on it. Sold that shit and upgraded as soon as I could afford it. If you ACTUALLY shot SERIOUS SPORTS, then you're going to know that AUTOFOCUS TRUMPS DR in any fucking argument. Have no money?  Sell the t2i and get a 1d mk ii n and stop your bitching and moaning. Buy the 1dx otherwise if you're that "invested," which I doubt you are. If you have a 55-250 or a 70-200 f/4, go, SWITCH TO NIKON and stop your moaning. Can't afford their 70-200 f/4 VR? Boofuckinghoo. Entitled git.



FEBS said:


> AccipiterQ said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to disagree.
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > AccipiterQ said:
> ...



If you're going to go from thread to thread posting the same uninformed opinion, you're going to get the same response. 



neuroanatomist said:


> ULFULFSEN said:
> 
> 
> > canon is not about invention. these times are long gone .
> ...


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ULFULFSEN said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



save you breath i know that..
.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-70d/canon-70dDUAL_PIXEL_AF.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/27/canon-dual-pixel-cmos-af-autofocus-secrets-of-the-canon-70d-explained


----------



## Steve (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> Hah, spot on, FEBS.
> 
> I used to have a personal t2i that I'd use alongside a D300 for sports, and I call bullshit on Accipter's claim as well that he shoots wildlife/sports/action on it. Sold that S___ and upgraded as soon as I could afford it. If you ACTUALLY shot SERIOUS SPORTS, then you're going to know that AUTOFOCUS TRUMPS DR in any F______ argument. Have no money? Sell the t2i and get a 1d mk ii n and stop your bitching and moaning. Buy the 1dx otherwise if you're that "invested," which I doubt you are. If you have a 55-250 or a 70-200 f/4, go, SWITCH TO NIKON and stop your moaning. Can't afford their 70-200 f/4 VR? Boofuckinghoo. Entitled git.



Bro. Take it down like a half dozen notches. Jesus.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > everyone believes the rumour where it says the sensor size is 20.2 megapixels
> ...



Ok, I have a question. If you are so sure it will be the same 70D sensor, what are you willing to do if you're wrong?
Some suggestions:
1. Limit every post for 1 year to 100 words.
2. Not use emoticons more than once at a time, not use capitals unless grammar requires it.
3. Post a deep sky astro photo twice every week.
4. Have the word DRone instead of POTATO in your signature, and explain why you have POTATO in your signature.
I would have offered something in exchange, but I am not certain either way (old sensor or new) and I like waiting a couple of days to find out rather than speculating when I have no data.
Cheers


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> Hah, spot on, FEBS.
> 
> I used to have a personal t2i that I'd use alongside a D300 for sports, and I call bullshit on Accipter's claim as well that he shoots wildlife/sports/action on it. Sold that S___ and upgraded as soon as I could afford it. If you ACTUALLY shot SERIOUS SPORTS, then you're going to know that AUTOFOCUS TRUMPS DR in any F______ argument. Have no money? Sell the t2i and get a 1d mk ii n and stop your bitching and moaning. Buy the 1dx otherwise if you're that "invested," which I doubt you are. If you have a 55-250 or a 70-200 f/4, go, SWITCH TO NIKON and stop your moaning. Can't afford their 70-200 f/4 VR? Boofuckinghoo. Entitled git.
> 
> ...



Ha! I don't agree with some of the points above (and pretty much any of the points Acci made, but all these posts made me break a chuckle.
Love the passion!


----------



## AccipiterQ (Sep 12, 2014)

FEBS said:


> AccipiterQ said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to disagree.
> ...



I bought the T2i several years ago when I first needed a crop and wanted to cut my teeth. The 5D3 isn't a crop, it's FF.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > everyone believes the rumour where it says the sensor size is 20.2 megapixels
> ...


Agreed.... Canon does recycle... and that's what has me wondering....

If they really are recycling from the 70D, why didn't they take the WiFi and touchscreen? It means more parts to stock and more software to write and support....

We still don't know what process the 70D was made on.... but if it was on the 180nm line it is feasible that round one was to make and debug the photodiodes/microlenses and it is possible that round 2 might be to move over the A/D logic... it is possible that it might be a radically different sensor beneath the photodiodes.... we just don't know.

Personally, I am not willing to bet one way or the other.... particularly since there is only a week to wait. I am patient and besides, the birds are starting to migrate and the trees are starting to turn colour.... I can amuse myself while I wait


----------



## x-vision (Sep 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



Here's a real-worls example for you: 
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3723021

The guy is complaining about 'magenta strips' in his photos when pushing the shadows.
He seems to be unaware of the DR debates that we've been having. 
So, there, a good example for you.


----------



## Woody (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> It's not a matter of having a closed mind. It's a simple matter of logic. It is completely illogical for them to create another 20.2mp sensor, if they have moved to a radically different fabrication process. Smaller transistors would allow them to do so much more with a much higher resolution sensor. It just makes no sense.
> 
> The other rumor was still just that...a rumor. Was it even more than a CR1?



The rumors are at CR2 level.

From http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/06/new-sensor-tech-in-eos-7d-mark-ii-cr2/

"We’re told to definitely expect new sensor technology to be introduced in the Canon EOS 7D Mark II. This tech will be used in all forthcoming Canon DSLRs."

From http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/07/canon-to-make-a-big-splash-at-photokina-cr2/

"First up, the successor to the EOS 7D will be announced. We’re told that there’s “a lot of the 1D X” in the new camera. As well as some revolutionary sensor technology."

I don't disagree with your reasoning about the re-use of old fabrication process. So, I suspect the so-called revolutionary technology probably has more to do with improvements in dual pixel AF which does not work in AF Servo mode currently.

In short, 7D M2 is going to be a product that showcases all the latest and best AF technology Canon has to offer: 65 all-cross AF sensor and DPAF with AF Servo capability. We'll know for sure on Sep 15th.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

And you're wildly glossing over my original comment in this thread (that you reposted). I specifically said that unrealistic = 7DII>5DIII, so I'm making an assumption that you READ my comment and didn't cherry-pick it out of its context. I don't think we disagree at all if you take the time to read through the original statement. I whole-heartedly agree that the 7D's sensor sucks. I used it with my 5DIII at a football game and hated the noise. And I apologize I didn't read all your old posts for the past five years, you're right, I haven't seen your past posts. Kudos for the long history here. You asked what how I would define unrealistic? I already did it in the previous statement.

Like I said, I don't think we're disagreeing on anything at this point, and I'm not going back however many pages to double-check. Correct me if I'm wrong. Your most recent post is quite a lot more in depth to what we were previously talking about, and I take no issue with it and rather agree with it.



jrista said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > Unrealistic is to expect a 7D II to have a better sensor than a 5DIII. Why would Canon sacrifice $3500 and $6000 price points within a couple of years to go after amateurs who never invest in their pro lenses? Riddle me that. It's called staying in the business. Don't put all your tech in one basket, then everyone is going to bitch and moan that next generations don't improve on much, then camera sales will fall, and then Canon's out of business, and then all of a sudden your warranty doesn't mean jack S___. Let them shaft CPS, fast repairs, etc., b.c. you want all your goodies in one year? Ask any product engineer and what they have to deal with in the marketing departments, and you'll see what I mean. I doubt a D5300 can outshoot a 5DIII in the worst of worst lighting conditions, but be my guest. Sensor size always affects AF and IQ, not counting the several generation old cameras like the 5d classic.
> ...


----------



## AccipiterQ (Sep 12, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > Hah, spot on, FEBS.
> ...



You actually think the 70D is an improvement over the T2i in any way shape or form? You actually think rehashing the same garbage sensor they've been retching up is going to give you what, more than a 1% upgrade in image quality? Seriously?


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

Just bracket. It's not as if landscape photographers don't know how to exposure blend. If your landscape is in active motion, both foreground and background, then yeah, Canon could use some improvement. If it's really an issue and you can't wait for Canon to release a high DR full frame camera, go shoot medium format or Nikon. Nbd. No product is perfect, we get it.



x-vision said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


----------



## NancyP (Sep 12, 2014)

RE: "POTATO"
I always thought those designations next to our names were based on number of posts - that newbies with 20 posts were labeled "ancient PowerShot", people who have a hundred posts might be "EOS M" (I think that's my current designation), people who have 500 posts might be (gasp) "7D", people who have a thousand or so posts over several years might rank as "1DX". So what's "Potato"? Based on the fact that jrista has a huge number of posts (surely less than 1% of non-moderators have 4,000 posts here), perhaps the "Potato" designation signifies that CR management thinks that he is a COUCH "Potato". Jrista, you have interesting things to say, don't get offended - I think this theory is pretty amusing. 

I do believe that we have sacrificed a sufficient number of electrons to the cause. Let's go out shooting. Or at least drool over some Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 images, if we can't get out to shoot. Go visit Ming Thien's page or Bryan Carnahan's (the-digital-picture) page for some LENS PRON.

FWIW, I think that $1,800.00 for a top-grade AF system, 10 fps, big buffer APS-C camera plus an existing 400mm f/5.6L is going to help my bird photo keeper rate, compared with my existing 60D. I can't think of another under-$2,000.00 investment in equipment that will help me as much. Maybe renting a 1DX and 600mm f/4 L IS II and Wimberley for two weeks and heading to a major migration hot spot (time off, hotel or campsite, meals) would be a better use of $1,800.00.


----------



## x-vision (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > everyone believes the rumour where it says the sensor size is 20.2 megapixels
> ...



Exactly. 

If the 7DII sensor was a new sensor, they would have moved to at least 22mp - and more likely 24-28.
That would have been a competitive advantage.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 12, 2014)

AccipiterQ said:


> You actually think the 70D is an improvement over the T2i in any way shape or form?



Yes, in more than one way.


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Sep 12, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> everyone believes the rumour where it says the sensor size is 20.2 megapixels
> nobody believes the rumour where it says that it is not the same sensor as the 70D
> 
> and people are already condemning it, sight unseen.
> ...



Yep pretty much sums things up.....wait until the actual product has been demo'd and spec's confirmed before damning the thing to camera purgatory based on rumor and conjecture.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

I'm getting tired of responding to your posts quoting me out of context. Go get a K3 or D7100 if you're so preoccupied with keeping up with your neighbor. Canon can definitely use some improvement in dynamic range, big whoop dee fucking doo.



jrista said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > And you're wildly glossing over my original comment in this thread (that you reposted). I specifically said that unrealistic = 7DII>5DIII, so I'm making an assumption that you READ my comment and didn't cherry-pick it out of its context. I don't think we disagree at all if you take the time to read through the original statement. I whole-heartedly agree that the 7D's sensor sucks. I used it with my 5DIII at a football game and hated the noise. And I apologize I didn't read all your old posts for the past five years, you're right, I haven't seen your past posts. Kudos for the long history here. You asked what how I would define unrealistic? I already did it in the previous statement.
> ...


----------



## x-vision (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Specs wise, I think the 7D II has the specs it needs. I don't think it's a bad camera. I just think Canon missed an opportunity to tell their customers, potential customers, and those who might potentially jump ship (or at least stop waiting on Canon) for better DR that they have heard the message, have actually responded, and are now demonstrating that they, too, have the capacity to catapult their sensor technology into the 2010's. They missed it.
> 
> ... Simple as that.



My thoughts exactly. Canon indeed missed a golden opportunity.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> I just think Canon missed an opportunity to tell their customers, potential customers, and those who might potentially jump ship (or at least stop waiting on Canon) for better DR that they have heard the message, have actually responded, and are now demonstrating that they, too, have the capacity to catapult their sensor technology into the 2010's. They missed it. Not are going to miss it, but missed it.



Past tense? It's not even announced yet! Maybe you're right, maybe not. At this point, it's still a rumor.


----------



## jrista (Sep 12, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I just think Canon missed an opportunity to tell their customers, potential customers, and those who might potentially jump ship (or at least stop waiting on Canon) for better DR that they have heard the message, have actually responded, and are now demonstrating that they, too, have the capacity to catapult their sensor technology into the 2010's. They missed it. Not are going to miss it, but missed it.
> ...



The specs were confirmed, though. I mean...it's what the title says:

"Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications *Confirmed*"

As I replied to Don...I find it to be completely illogical to think that the 20.2mp sensor is somehow new. With these confirmed specs, I see no evidence to suggest any alternative: It's the 70D sensor. It's Canon doing the Canon thing...reusing parts. Being cheap. 

Anyway..."confirmed"...means something rather specific to me.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> It's not a matter of having a closed mind. It's a simple matter of logic. It is completely illogical for them to create another 20.2mp sensor, if they have moved to a radically different fabrication process.



R&D costs. Not wanting to completely redesign something and risk a failure when the camera in question is their flagship crop body. Balancing pixels and CPU requirements / thermal issues, especially with DPAF. Even software could drive the decision to keep the same MP count for now if the algorithms for DPAF are tightly coupled to that MP count for performance reasons.



> Smaller transistors would allow them to do so much more with a much higher resolution sensor. It just makes no sense.



How so? DR is driven in part by pixel size, so you want them to shrink the pixels and have more DR? 24 MP would look better to Joe Blow consumer because everything else is 24 MP, but unless they jump from 20 to 30 MP there's not a useful resolution difference. And judging from sales data Joe Blow hasn't cared yet.



> The other rumor was still just that...a rumor. Was it even more than a CR1? We have real specs now...and the specs say 20.2mp. The real specs do not mention it's new...just that it's 20.2mp. Canon already has a 20.2mp sensor. Canon also has a long history of reusing sensors...over....and over.......and over.........AND OVER.................AAAAAAAND OOOOOOVEEERRRR. AND OVER! Can anyone say 18mp? Say it ten times fast. Over and over and over.



Except that the 18 MP sensors are not the same. How many times does this have to be said? I knew from the first day of shooting the M that it was an improved sensor over the 7D. Not dramatic, but there.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Context - it's a "rumors" site.

Just for keeping things factual, every 18MP sensor Canon has made has had a different part number. Yes, they all perform similarly, but not the same. I would virtually guarantee that this one will have a new part number. Even if it does perform the same, that doesn't mean the off-sensor A-to-D will perform the same. In fact, it's almost certainly different just to keep up with the higher frame rate. And that might mean it performs differently. Finally what if it has some version of the Magic Lantern dual-ISO trick built in? That provides a substantial DR improvement even on the exact same sensor.

So, you're making an assumption. A series of them in fact. Those assumptions might be logical but that doesn't make them necessarily accurate. Let's wait until announcement and testing before putting such "conclusions" into the past tense.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

x-vision said:


> Here's a real-worls example for you:



No RAW file...no notes on production...looks like he refused to nudge the color NR slider to me. And no shot made at the same time under the same conditions from a competing sensor.

FAIL.

Want to try again?


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

Seriously, I told you stop quoting me out of context, hence my attitude, and you're still doing it, but whatever. Yeah, and Canon wouldn't do it because it's a bad business decision. Not everything is limited to the context of engineering and research and development. Nikon doesn't put a better sensor than the D810 in their D3200 or D7100, do they? It's called product segmentation. I'm all for better stuff, just try to remember any camera company is in it to make money. Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fujifilm, Leica, name ANY camera company and they'll do the same thing if they're in the market for long enough. Do you see Sony put a better sensor into their A6000 just because they're releasing it after their A7s? Camera companies, like presidents, can't make everyone happy, and they sure as hell aren't in it to send their product prices spiraling downwards. So you don't like the dynamic range. Go get a D400 or a D810 and a 600mm from them and give it a break. Have fun, enjoy your life.



jrista said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > I'm getting tired of responding to your posts quoting me out of context. Go get a K3 or D7100 if you're so preoccupied with keeping up with your neighbor. Canon can definitely use some improvement in dynamic range, big whoop dee F______ doo.
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Let's wait until announcement and testing before putting such "conclusions" into the past tense.



Why should someone who's already made up their mind want to follow such logical advice? :


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Let's wait until announcement and testing before putting such "conclusions" into the past tense.
> ...



Logic? In a thread about a new Canon product when DRoners are in the forum? INCONCEIVABLE!

I'm all for grabbing pitch forks and torches and heading to a Canon service center ;D


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> The fact that the 7D II is going to use DIGIC 6, which has been designed and still includes the ADC,...



By the way, I found out that DIGIC doesn't include the ADCs.

http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/blog/full-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/

"Of the Canon DSLRs analyzed, the imaging chip has remained analog, with Analog Devices’ analog front end (AFE) chips handling A/D conversion en route to the Digic-branded ISPs."


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

I already addressed this in my previous reply to you. Just because a camera company has developed a technology doesn't mean they should release the technology when you want, at the price you want it. There are bigger product and pricing strategies and schemes than you or I understand. The market will determine how the company responds and when they will, not necessarily one individual's Christmas wishlist. If Canon released all their new R&D tech this year in one product, they wouldn't have a product with new features the next, and then their engineers would be out on the streets begging for alms. Does that business plan sustain R&D for the future? The usual business practice is to dole out new features little by little and also slow down in response to a recession. Every big camera company does this, every big technology company does this. When competition heats up, then the doling becomes quicker, but so far, Pentax and Sony are not big competition despite what all the internet bloggers say. Haven't you heard? Mirrorless has killed the DSLR already (as of Spring of 2013, if you read Engadget, Verge, etc)!



jrista said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


----------



## x-vision (Sep 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Want to try again?



No, dude, you don't get it.

That's was a real-world example from a guy who likely doesn't know what DR is. 
His photo got strange artifacts (shadow noise and banding) and he was asking what that is. 
It really doesn't get any more 'real world' than that.

But you keep dismissing any real world example that is given to you (in addition to the controlled tests e.g. DxO) - and you keep mindlessly parroting your stupid mantra. 
That's FAIL. 

You and your Canon masters deserve each other.


----------



## andrewrsnyd (Sep 12, 2014)

Does anybody know (approximately) what the price of the Canon 7d Mark II?


----------



## x-vision (Sep 12, 2014)

andrewrsnyd said:


> Does anybody know (approximately) what the price of the Canon 7d Mark II?



Rumor is around $1800.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Anyway..."confirmed"...means something rather specific to me.


Confirmed means something rather specific to me too.... The problem is that only Canon can confirm the specs and they are not talking....


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

Does it actually affect photos that you've taken this year? Can you show some of your own real world examples? If it's just lab tests and other people's photos and you're not running into the problem personally, who cares? There are ways around dynamic range constraints, and it's called bracketing and exposure blending. The top landscape photographers do it all the time, and even the ones with D810's and Pentax 645z's will do it too. Sure, there are situations like with wind and stuff that would prevent bracketing and blending, but you'd be surprised what some people can do in most other situations with an old 5d classic or mark ii instead of balking at their camera limitations. Work around them by learning new techniques and then when a new camera body is released with the dynamic range, enjoy it. Your art shouldn't stop just because a camera company's sensor tech. If sensor was such a big deal (make or break feature), you should have done your research when selecting a camera system and gone with one that delivers more DR at that moment. Or be my guest and go develop your own sensor and camera system like JPL and other orbiting camera manufacturers does. Their dynamic ranges are unparalleled, but that system also weighs and costs a shit ton. Every system has give and take.



x-vision said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Want to try again?
> ...


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> I wonder if the 7D II will intrigue Chipworks enough to analyse it...they haven't really done much with Canon cameras since that one article, and nothing with Canon sensors since that article.



They have a detailed analysis of the 70D sensor. It's just $16,000 to purchase it.

The only reason on-sensor ADC is good is so that you have lots and lots of them (and don't need lots and lots of PC board traces). Discrete ADCs can be quite good. I'm about to start using some commercial parts that are 24 bits at +/- 500mV with a rated DR of 110db, and that's with screw terminals to bring the voltages to it from entirely off the module.

And the only reason lots and lots of them is a good thing is so they can each run slowly. I wonder if Canon could implement a high DR mode that would slow the 7DII down to 1fps for lower read noise, and a super high DR mode that would do that and do the Magic Lantern dual-ISO trick too. All with the same sensor.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> DR is driven in part by pixel size,...



If that were true, the G15 wouldn't have more base ISO DR than the 1DX:

http://sensorgen.info/CanonPowershot_G15.html
http://sensorgen.info/CanonEOS-1D_X.html


----------



## pknight (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> ... Focus accuracy is way better on Canon. Dynamic range is better on Nikon.



This seems to be the consensus. I will take a lower DR in-focus shot over a OOF shot with more OOF detail in the shadows any day. If the 7DII AF is as good as folks here are speculating, this trade-off is OK with me.

(I know. Does there need to be a trade-off? Ideally not, but if it comes down to excellent AF vs a stop of DR, the choice is easy for me.)


----------



## preppyak (Sep 12, 2014)

Finally including the intervalometer makes me laugh. ML has had that one solved for years...good thing they finally figured it out themselves


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

Long before Exmor came on the scene means that you should be able to wait a few more years, no? What's the difference if Canon does't give you huge DR this year? They'll do it next year or the year after that with a 5DIV or whatever. If you're invested in 30000 dollars worth of equipment, then just buckle down and wait for that announcement. I believe we already talked about leapfrogging. Go see Thom Hogan's article on it. It's unrealistic to expect Canon to release top of the line features for every single segment every single year. Canon used to have the biggest megapixel sensor (22mp on the 5d mk ii) and NO ONE could touch it for a while on 35mm size sensor. Now Nikon does it, and yes they have a great sensor (DR), but make no mistake, Canon will follow up sooner or later. Then Nikon will roll out a feature, and then everyone will demand Canon have the same, and the pros will just roll their eyes and continue making money off of the gear they already have. I get the frustration, but Canon's playing the smart business move by not using Sony's sensor. Outsource your tech, and then all of a sudden your parts supplier will turn around and compete with you. Look to Samsung vs. Apple and many other cases. The world is bigger than just R&D and specs, there's also business variables at play here too.



jrista said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > If sensor was such a big deal (make or break feature), you should have done your research when selecting a camera system and gone with one that delivers more DR at that moment.
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 12, 2014)

yeah but we are heading towards a ten year cycle at this point and maybe even longer

think of all the shots and amazing places you visit in ten years

sure many shots didn't need to DR, but plenty enough along the way could've been helped for sure



joejohnbear said:


> Product cycles have always been long. Again, the major complaint about the 5dII when it was released was the autofocus. When the 5DIII came out, the goal post got moved by netizens to dynamic range. 3-4 years is typical for the big two (Canon and Nikon). Sony and Fujifilm iterate much faster because they're new players and they have to. But they don't have the full lens lineup or professional service support yet either, so that's their only competitive edge (they need it to even make any leeway). In the process, you get half-assed products (sometimes!) like the Black Magic Cinema Cameras (2.5k and pocket) with lots of malfunctions and products. But yeah, I get what you mean, I do envy the DR on sony cameras, and if they had more lenses and I had more money, I'd get them to play with on the weekend or shoot as a third camera at a wedding. Be patient, Canon WILL bring out the product you want. If you have unlimited income, buy the other company's products, but you WILL lose a tremendous amount of money selling your system because you couldn't wait a couple of years for a new body. And really, the rumor expectations will always let you down, just know that Canon will release better sensor tech when they're finished upgrading their lenses (makes sense, right? upgrade your lens system before you pump out a sensor that outresolves all of them, right?).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 12, 2014)

Yeah, for now the other choice would ahve to be Nikon.



joejohnbear said:


> Sony's specs are great...until you shoot with wide aperture luxury primes or NCAA Div I sports. All of a sudden their 10-12 fps look like S___ when your in-focus shots are 2-8 out of 10-12 (might apply more to some mirrorless bragging about fps, don't recall the exacts), and you missed the game winning touchdown. Specs are worthless when your real-world results are subpar. Go to any major NCAA Div I or NFL game and tell me if you see ONE Sony supertelephoto on the field. Didn't think so. If you do, it's pretty rare, at the very least, and for good reason.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 12, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Yeah, but so far Canon DSLR give poor 1080p fo ranything less than 1 series (they all had bad aliasing other than the 5D3 and they are all waxy, poor detail, poor DR).

The only one that gives great 1080p is the 5D3 but only if using ML RAW (it is great in that case, which also means that there is no way the 7D2 can deliver better video unless they went 4k with it and then you'd hope).

Also if they gave 7D2 4k it means they'd be a bit freer to not cripple whatever 4k they put in the 5D4.

If it delivers C300 1080p detail and has 10bits then maybe the 7D2 does decently well and that is easier to deal with than 5D3 RAW. But the way they are already talking about the advanced NR in the Digic6 makes me think it will be more wax works (and 8bits only of course), we'll see.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

Fair point, but I think DR-commentators aren't giving Canon credit for improving vastly in a lot of other areas. Also, I think the length of the cycle has more to do with the stock market crashing and the recession starting in 2008, the year before the 7D was released I believe. With a retracting economy, Canon responded by pacing out their features instead of releasing them quickly at higher prices. The higher prices of things like the 24-70 mark ii has everything to do with the value of the yen at the time, before we ever start on that topic. So even if Canon had some amazing dynamic range, medium format, or mirrorless tech, they refrain from releasing it because no one has that much money. Also, the tsunami that affected Japan had an influence on Canon and Nikon's technology rollout, as I'm sure it did on Sony and Fujifilm and the rest of the hot topic, constantly blogged about camera companies. I go back to my point that no company is perfect, and Canon leads on its entire system while Sony does the opposite, selling on its body alone without a comprehensive set of lenses or professional services to accompany it. Nikon is great, but they've had some issues with customer support within the past couple of years. If I really wanted better DR, I'd go with them, but Canon's AF is slightly better, and immensely better if you shoot at f/1.4 and f/1.2 all the time like I do. However, my style is shifting from exotic wide aperture primes shot wide open, so Canon and Nikon are both great companies for what I do.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> yeah but we are heading towards a ten year cycle at this point and maybe even longer
> 
> think of all the shots and amazing places you visit in ten years
> 
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



I don't know what diet coke boxes you are going on about.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't have one with me on that trip.
> ...



SOme of us even have put up the exact same shot at the same time and you still made excuses and said it didn't count. So bye.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

I agree, Canon's codecs could use some major overhaul. I shot a video without ML on my mk III and it pissed me off in many ways. However, it's understandable they would try to differentiate between their DSLR's and their cinema camera lineup. Enough pressure from Nikon, however, and Canon will respond with better native codecs at that time through a firmware update. Sony doesn't have count entirely as a fully competing system because they either don't have the same lens assortment, esp. supertelephotos, or you can use their FS100/700 series cameras with adapters, so you'd end up using the same Canon or Nikon lenses.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > And when Fred posted same shots, same time, same cam and showed a big difference then you just had more excuses for why the differnce was not really there.
> ...



Yeah artificial. Right. So the times people actually do bother to take the same shot the same way are artificial since that means it was a test and then when someone is out hiking they usually don't have the time to do that so they only have shots from one camera (plus if they did do that then it would be an 'artificial' test again anyway :) and then even if you see noise you still have to ignore it because there is 'no way' to remotely tell that it would look different if it had more stops of DR :.

And sure, apply NR and this and that to the Canon file and THEN compare it to the Exmor, that is really fare (plus it still looks like junk in comparison anyway and lots of details are not there, even if the smoothness is much closer at that point).


----------



## pknight (Sep 12, 2014)

x-vision said:


> That's exactly why the 7DII is disappointing.
> Yes, the specs are fantastic.
> But out of the gate, the image quality is already lagging behind the competition.
> 
> ...



Really? Can you post those terrible IQ 7DII photos for us? You know nothing, Jon Snow. Perhaps you will turn out to be right, once there actually *are* 7DII images, but for now, this is the purest of speculation.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 12, 2014)

Playing 6 page catch up now, but folks on here saying the 7D2 "has image quality already lagging behind he competition" has got to be joking me..... None of us has seen the actual camera yet let alone a SINGLE frame from it. Good Lord!! Get a grip. Why don't we all wait to see what it really is and what it can do before we bring out the cross and nails!! And btw, I have a T2i... And the 7D. Same camera? Uhh No......


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 12, 2014)

It doesn't seem to be the codec that is doing the damage though.

The 5D3 uncompressed HDMI out looks almost exactly the same as in cam compressed footage.

It's got to either be that DIGIC is terrible at de-Bayer and fine processing to retain detail and too tuned for a wax-works, smooth, no noise look or that Canon has decided to use parameters that apply too much wax works although DIGIC could do better if fed different settings, or that marketing has them apply some blur function to make sure the quality doesn't threaten their high-end stuff.



joejohnbear said:


> I agree, Canon's codecs could use some major overhaul. I shot a video without ML on my mk III and it pissed me off in many ways. However, it's understandable they would try to differentiate between their DSLR's and their cinema camera lineup. Enough pressure from Nikon, however, and Canon will respond with better native codecs at that time through a firmware update. Sony doesn't have count entirely as a fully competing system because they either don't have the same lens assortment, esp. supertelephotos, or you can use their FS100/700 series cameras with adapters, so you'd end up using the same Canon or Nikon lenses.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

Yeah, that troll with the t2i deleted his comment in response to me before I could post my response and tear him apart. I'm considering reposting his comment and my response to it, but I won't do so unless he starts it up again.



PureClassA said:


> Playing 6 page catch up now, but folks on here saying the 7D2 "has image quality already lagging behind he competition" has got to be joking me..... None of us has seen the actual camera yet let along a SINGLE frame from it. Good Lord!! Get a grip. Why don't we all wait to see what it really is and what it can do before we bring out the cross and nails!! And btw, I have a T2i... And the 7D. Same camera? Uhh No......


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> Yeah, that troll with the t2i deleted his comment in response to me before I could post my response and tear him apart. I'm considering reposting his comment and my response to it, but I won't do so unless he starts it up again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ahh. Well for the record I loved my T2i!! A dear friend now has it (mine) and loves it. I bought my 7D about a year after is bought the 2i. They are both great but very different rigs.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > DR is driven in part by pixel size,...
> ...



Oh look...regurgitated DxO used dog food.

If I look it up, will the G15 have a higher score then a Hasselblad? :

I get more DR from an EOS M on a step wedge then they claim for the 1DX. Hmmm...hey Neuro, if you're still reading this, want to trade my M for your 1DX? You want maximum DR don't you? ;D


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

Yeah, I didn't deconstruct what was doing the damage, but I'm sure it can be solved with a firmware update IF someone came out with a product that could compete at the same price point. Even the D800 requires an external capture device (i.e. that Ninja thing) that costs an additional $1-3k, I can't remember the price. This becomes an especially niche video market. Most pro studios are spending $12k and up for raw video anyways, and Canon's not going to sacrifice this market so that an indie filmmaking crew whose producer couldn't gather enough funding could buy their top of the line features. Right now, I think there are a few third party options at the same price point, but not with the same lens system and professional service. Working pro's and studios aren't going to gamble on a blackmagic, regardless of how well it works, because the return times required when the device needs to be serviced. Obviously I'd love if Canon gave me clean video with ML, but for now I don't do enough video work as my main source of income to complain, and I always ML to back me up if needed. I understand that for the price point ($3500), I'm getting less features and quality than a full cinema camera. If Canon releases anything better and sends it my way, I'm more than happy to accept it, but for now, I'm not clamoring for pitchforks and fire and I carry on with what I have.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It doesn't seem to be the codec that is doing the damage though.
> 
> The 5D3 uncompressed HDMI out looks almost exactly the same as in cam compressed footage.
> 
> ...


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> sure many shots didn't need to DR, but plenty enough along the way could've been helped for sure



Waiting for real world examples of what we are all missing ;D


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I don't know what diet coke boxes you are going on about.



In one thread someone severely underexposed and then pushed a photo of a Coke box. That was a "real world example."

Still waiting for yours....


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> > Photo up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> SOme of us even have put up the exact same shot at the same time and you still made excuses and said it didn't count. So bye.



Really? Because I don't remember that. You have links to these photos? Or is this just another baseless generic claim?


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



holy shit! Did I just buy a 1DX for $250!?!?! Hahaha


----------



## jrista (Sep 12, 2014)

Hell, let's just head this off:

http://1drv.ms/1pUWUGT

Dean's RAWs. Have at it.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



In that case, yes. Pushing shadows that hard...with no NR...might be fun in order to see differences in the shadows, but the entire scene becomes a blown out mess. That's not how you would actually prepare an image for print.



> So the times people actually do bother to take the same shot the same way are artificial



No. The times people do things they WOULD NEVER DO WITH A REAL WORLD PHOTOGRAPH like turn off all NR, push a properly exposed photo 5 stops, or severely underexpose a photo then push it 5 stops with no NR, are artificial because YOU WOULD NEVER DO THAT WITH A REAL WORLD PHOTOGRAPH.

So where is the real world photograph comparison? Where is the optimum exposure and processing to produce the best possible artistic print from each sensor? I would like to see that. I would like to see if Canon is "2-3 stops behind" in that case. (It wasn't in the FM case. Roughly the same DR, maybe 1 stop less shadow latitude.)

You have that test ready yet?



> And sure, apply NR and this and that to the Canon file and THEN compare it to the Exmor, that is really fare (plus it still looks like junk in comparison anyway and lots of details are not there, even if the smoothness is much closer at that point).



Best possible print is fair because that's what real photographers do when producing real photographs for real clients as opposed to sitting in a room measurebating. And the difference in the FM test was not nearly as dramatic as any of you make the differences to be. Yes, the Exmor sensor had better shadow latitude. No doubt. Just not enough to really matter.

Now it might make a noticeable difference in some scenes. If I wanted to play devil's advocate I bet I could illustrate in a real world scene where it would be noticeable. But I could still get the shot with the Canon with a little work. But the DRoners...the DRoners seem incapable of actually showing where it matters at all.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Um, he did not underexpose.



I would call it underexposed.



> To be very, very clear here...there was ZERO PUSHING OF ANY KIND in those Coke box images, they were strait out of camera



Oh really? Here's the link to his post: 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22422.msg431159#msg431159

Here are the labels from his posted images (which no longer appear). Emphasis mine:


> Mk3 *pushed 3 stops* in ACR
> D800 *pushed 3 stops* in ACR
> Mk3 *pushed 3 stops* in ACR 100% crop
> D800 *pushed 3 stops* in ACR 100 crop



Just to be clear


----------



## jrista (Sep 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Um, he did not underexpose.
> ...



This is what I was referring to:



> To offset the 'why do you have to push exposure 3 stops, only bad photographers get exposure wrong' posts,_ here is the red channel of both, *NOT pushed*_, just at 0 adjustment.



http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22422.msg431160#msg431160

I linked his RAWs on my onedrive. I encourage everyone to download and take a gander themselves. The banding in the Canon file is obvious. Without any adjustments.


----------



## NancyP (Sep 12, 2014)

OK, all you sensor geeks, here's your purgatory assignment. Shoot with any Sigma Foveon sensor camera. These are odd beasts. I love my Sigma DP Merrills but they are operationally odd, and the software is s-l-o-w and buggy. The cameras are very good for rendering natural landscapes and foliage, with excellent color subtlety. 

Why am I going on about Brand X? Sigma DP Merrill cameras are (big) pocket-sized landscape low ISO cameras with limited DR and wonderful resolution and color - specialty beasts. The as-yet-not-fully-specified 7D2 is an action camera, also a specialty beast. I am intrigued with the Sony A7r/A7s concepts, and these two cameras are different types of specialty cameras. Were I to do professional product photography, I might opt for the A7r, provided that it played well with tilt-shift lenses. Low light work, especially low light video, I would go for the A7s. Lots of choices out there.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> ...I think DR-commentators aren't giving Canon credit for improving vastly in a lot of other areas.



Dude, pull your head out. It's clear that you just don't get what a camera actually is. _"I'll explain and I'll use small words so that you'll be sure to understand, you warthog faced buffoon."_

A camera is a box. A worthless hunk of plastic and some metal, its sole purpose is to contain and protect the glory that is the imaging sensor, keeping the grubby fingerprints of plebes like you from despoiling it's pristine surface. 

_"There was a mighty duel. It ranged all over. The gestalt performance ran off alone, the sensor followed those color prints toward Exmor."

"Shall we track them both?"

"The loser is nothing. Only the DR matters."_

;D



(You're new here, so you may not know that I enjoy quoting _The Princess Bride_ and sarcasm...not necessarily in that order of preference.)


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > ...I think DR-commentators aren't giving Canon credit for improving vastly in a lot of other areas.
> ...



"My name is Neuro. You insulted my camera. Prepare to die"


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Hell, let's just head this off:
> 
> http://1drv.ms/1pUWUGT
> 
> Dean's RAWs. Have at it.



Time for you to revisit his post: 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22422.msg431159#msg431159

And time for you to open the RAW files yourself and view the histograms. The values are literally compressed to the left third of the graph. You have to give a 3 stop push in order to even out the histogram. Which means he underexposed by 3 stops.

Now I find it impressive that Exmor can handle this situation with grace. But you would never do this. You would never underexpose a scene with a deep shadow area that has no detail, then push that shadow area hard. There's zero reason to do this in the real world. You want that Coke box with a smooth run off into the shadowed corner? ETTR and pull down. Silky smooth on any sensor.

See how these conversations go? See why we get so frustrated? An artificial 3 stop underexposure/push test turns into "Canon has terrible banding even in properly exposed photos with no pushed shadows!" It's like that game kids play where each kid whispers something to the next and you see how much the original sentence has changed by the end. You would think people could accurately repeat a sentence, but at the end you realize the final sentence is nothing like the original.

You saved the RAWs...but forgot the test!!! And are now telling people how it proved something it clearly did not. You even emphasized it...JUST TO BE CLEAR...so sure of yourself and your opinion.

This Exmor mythology has become ridiculous.


----------



## x-vision (Sep 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> But I could still get the shot with the Canon with a little work. But the DRoners...the DRoners seem incapable of actually showing where it matters at all.



And I can bet $1000 that any of your photos could have been taken with a phone camera or a P&S.
You certainly don't need a DSRL - and yet, you bought one. 

And the reason you bought a DSLR is the very same reason why having more DR is better. 

Yes, you can take award winning photos with inferior gear.
But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't want better gear. 

We always want to have the best (we can afford) - even if we don't really need it.
Same for you with your Canon DSLR - and same for us, who want more DR.

So, your lame argument is just that - very, very lame. 

Common now, show me any of your DSLR pictures that I cannot take with my iPhone. 
If not, just stfu.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

dilbert said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Since I've shot scenes like that and not had a problem: pictures or it didn't happen.

I'm sick of words. I'm sick of opinions. I'm sick of theorizing. I'm sick of people misremembering underexposure tests as "real world normal exposure and there was banding!"

Pics or it didn't happen. If I was a mod it would be: pics or you are banned for a week


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

dilbert said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Spoken by someone with lots of words and no photos.


----------



## flyingSquirrel (Sep 12, 2014)

I'm asking this as a serious question, because I know nothing about shooting video, and I'm genuinely curious:

Why were/are so many people looking at the 7DmkII, a crop sensor camera, with such hope for a bounty of strong video features? As mentioned, I know nothing about video, but I would not think that a crop sensor camera would be the best option for that. What benefit would a crop sensor have for video?

Thanks for any clarification.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> This is what I was referring to:



I don't care. He underexposed by 3 stops. You have to underexpose then push the scene 3 stops to see the problem, or analyze a single color channel in the underexposed RAW. Red is the worst channel...even on Exmor...and has 1/4th the info of the total pixel, so it's really no different from amplifying the entire scene to see a problem. 

There's noise in the deep shadow region of a 3 stop underexposure which you will see if you amplify the exposure in post. WHAT A SHOCK.



> I linked his RAWs on my onedrive. I encourage everyone to download and take a gander themselves. The banding in the Canon file is obvious. Without any adjustments.



I think you better open them again


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 12, 2014)

flyingSquirrel said:


> I'm asking this as a serious question, because I know nothing about shooting video, and I'm genuinely curious:
> 
> Why were/are so many people looking at the 7DmkII, a crop sensor camera, with such hope for a bounty of strong video features? As mentioned, I know nothing about video, but I would not think that a crop sensor camera would be the best option for that. What benefit would a crop sensor have for video?
> 
> Thanks for any clarification.



Realize that most cinema cameras like RED are smaller sensor cameras than full frame. There's no reason a camera like the 7D couldn'thave decent video performance and newer video features.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Now I find it impressive that Exmor can handle this situation with grace. But you would never do this. You would never underexpose a scene with a deep shadow area that has no detail, then push that shadow area hard. There's zero reason to do this in the real world.



???
Do YOU ever get outside of the lab and take real world shots??
No reason, no scene ever needs that much DR?


----------



## x-vision (Sep 12, 2014)

flyingSquirrel said:


> I'm asking this as a serious question, because I know nothing about shooting video, and I'm genuinely curious:
> 
> Why were/are so many people looking at the 7DmkII, a crop sensor camera, with such hope for a bounty of strong video features? As mentioned, I know nothing about video, but I would not think that a crop sensor camera would be the best option for that. What benefit would a crop sensor have for video?
> 
> Thanks for any clarification.



The Super-35 format, which is the standard movie format, has basically the size of a crop sensor. 
So, crop sensors are already standard size for movies; FF is larger than the standard.

As for why the big hopes for the 7DII: there were all kinds of hopes for the 7DII.
One of them was that it would have a new sensor with advanced performance for both stills and video.

In retrospect, it was indeed too much to ask for - knowing Canon, that is.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > sure many shots didn't need to DR, but plenty enough along the way could've been helped for sure
> ...



Dude, you were already given them. But no matter what you are given, you have some new excuse. BYE.
troll.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

Wait, what, what'd I say wrong? I'm just saying that everyone is harping on DR, and it's not Canon's forte now, they do other stuff better, who cares?



neuroanatomist said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > ...I think DR-commentators aren't giving Canon credit for improving vastly in a lot of other areas.
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:



> In that case, yes. Pushing shadows that hard...with no NR...might be fun in order to see differences in the shadows, but the entire scene becomes a blown out mess.



So pulling shadows blows the highlights then? :
OK, so you don't even know how to do basic photo processing.

Anyway it's useless responding to you, so that was the last one.
Write whatever you want.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

This, there is more to a tool than just one aspect. Sensor is just one of them.



NancyP said:


> OK, all you sensor geeks, here's your purgatory assignment. Shoot with any Sigma Foveon sensor camera. These are odd beasts. I love my Sigma DP Merrills but they are operationally odd, and the software is s-l-o-w and buggy. The cameras are very good for rendering natural landscapes and foliage, with excellent color subtlety.
> 
> Why am I going on about Brand X? Sigma DP Merrill cameras are (big) pocket-sized landscape low ISO cameras with limited DR and wonderful resolution and color - specialty beasts. The as-yet-not-fully-specified 7D2 is an action camera, also a specialty beast. I am intrigued with the Sony A7r/A7s concepts, and these two cameras are different types of specialty cameras. Were I to do professional product photography, I might opt for the A7r, provided that it played well with tilt-shift lenses. Low light work, especially low light video, I would go for the A7s. Lots of choices out there.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

You just watch your back, PureClassA. I will one day make Rebel SL class. 



PureClassA said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > joejohnbear said:
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 12, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Ugh potentially worse:

From a Canon employee (although he does NOT work in the DSLR division or even in Japan): "....or those expecting 4K video in a DLSR will be very disappointed. Canon sees no reason for this in a consumer camera yet. They told my boss only about 10% of people buy a 5D III for it's video capabilities. They are focusing on cinema market and want you to pay big dollars for the C300/500 or 1DC if you must have a DSLR with 4K. 5D IV will not get it IMO and at best we will see 1080p @ 60fps."

Great so they want to go from a lot buying the 5D2 for video to 10% for the 5D3 to 0.1% for the 5D4. Brilliant.

If this is true and no Exmor-low ISO.... maybe Canon really and truly has lost the plot.
We'll see next year.

EDIT: I still find it hard to believe they'd be that that foolish to leave 4k out of even the 5D4 though. I still think it will have it. I know they have become followers and reactive and like the milk stuff for all it's worth, but I still don't think they are they have become quite that far out of it.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Your missing the point. With an Exmor, you CAN do that.



You're missing the point because you've never actually touched an Exmor equipped camera.

At a 5 stop push your tonality is junk compared to a blend where the shadows are properly exposed. Been there, tested that, would never do it except in an absolute emergency.

As other Exmor camera owners have told you point blank in this forum: at first you're blown away by the ability to push Exmor RAWs. Then you realize that's not the path to optimal IQ even without shadow noise. Then you come down from the high and realize that yes, Exmor is a little easier to work with and/or produces somewhat better shadow results in some real world cases. But Canon and Exmor are not that different after all. And generally if you are blending or using GND filters on the Canon, you want them on the Exmor as well. Likewise, with a little technique and work you can get the photo on Canon.

That's reality.

Now, I wouldn't blame anyone for buying Exmor based on that. I might ignore one camera and buy another based on button placement. Everyone has their own priorities. But...the whining and the hyperbole and the false claims in every thread of a Canon forum needs to come to a screeching halt. If I remember correctly...Neuro correct me here because I think you were the one who mentioned it in another thread...someone asked about setting LCD brightness here and got a treatise on freaking Exmor DR 

And for the record: I am done believing that you actually care about this except to use as a soapbox to complain. A Sony A7 can be had for $1,300. EF adapters are...what...$100? $200? But any time someone says that it's another whine: "Sony uses lossy RAW and I might see it in 1 out of 100,000 frames."

If I was CEO of Canon and you were my customer...I would send you a gift card to a Nikon store.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

x-vision said:


> And I can bet $1000 that any of your photos could have been taken with a phone camera or a P&S.



My 24" and 36" landscape prints want to know when you are going to send me a $1,000 check


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

Because there are a lot of people who can't afford Super-35 cameras dedicated for video like the FS-700, FS-100, C100,300,500 and are hoping for features from top end features to trickle down to "cheap" cameras as soon as in their dreams. That said, the Canon DSLR's do suck for video IF you don't publish to web. ML takes care of it, but you pay tooth through nail for actual first-party support on real video cameras instead of dula purpose DSLR's/video cameras. Remember, 5d mk ii was more than enough to start the "DSLR" video revolution, but mark my words, that revolution was unintentional and more than over now that Canon has released their own cinema cameras. When prodded, they'll release more features, but as of now there are no competitors at the _same price point_, despite what people will try to tell you.



flyingSquirrel said:


> I'm asking this as a serious question, because I know nothing about shooting video, and I'm genuinely curious:
> 
> Why were/are so many people looking at the 7DmkII, a crop sensor camera, with such hope for a bounty of strong video features? As mentioned, I know nothing about video, but I would not think that a crop sensor camera would be the best option for that. What benefit would a crop sensor have for video?
> 
> Thanks for any clarification.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> ???
> Do YOU ever get outside of the lab and take real world shots??
> No reason, no scene ever needs that much DR?



That's not what I said. *You do not underexpose 3 stops then push shadows 3 stops when those shadows have no detail to recover in the first place!* Not unless you are trying to produce banding.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Dude, you were already given them. But no matter what you are given, you have some new excuse. BYE.
> troll.



Neither photos nor links from you. Who is the troll?

Oh...the underexposed Coke box is a real world example. Oh kay :


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> Wait, what, what'd I say wrong? I'm just saying that everyone is harping on DR, and it's not Canon's forte now, they do other stuff better, who cares?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While Nero's comments were not on the serious side, I am not aware of the vast improvements Canon has made in other areas that would be demonstrated with the specs listed for the 7D II. To me it looks like a rehash using existing components.
Nothing ground breaking yet, maybe when the announcement is official Canon will reveal something we do not see on the surface of the specs.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > In that case, yes. Pushing shadows that hard...with no NR...might be fun in order to see differences in the shadows, but the entire scene becomes a blown out mess.
> ...



Says the guy who is confusing *pushing* and *pulling*.

Go away until you have a sample to defend your claims.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 12, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Anyway it's useless responding to you, so that was the last one.
> Write whatever you want.



And yet, three minutes later, your are back posting. Don't promise to leave and then keep posting. It raises our hopes too much.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

I've used a D700 and fucked up an image by underexposing it. Being able to draw out the shadows three stops is great and convenient. I agree with Jrista there. However, after learning from a well-established landscape photographer who shoots with nothing but a 5d classic and then recently a 5d mark ii, bracketing and exposure blending really is THE way to go IF your conditions condone it. There are grad ND filters and reverse ND grad filters for other situations. This is where I agree with jrista. Extra DR is REALLY useful for things like weddings, and I'm not going to say no to it if offered. However, I think it's really just one part of a larger equation in an entire camera system. There are several reasons why most of the wedding industry I'm working in my area sticks to Canon, and they don't include DR at this point unfortunately.



dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Your missing the point. With an Exmor, you CAN do that.
> ...


----------



## flyingSquirrel (Sep 12, 2014)

Ok, thank you very much to the people that responded to my question about video. I really appreciate it, and I am surprised to learn that video formats already are typically a smaller sensor. Good to know (as one day I will be shooting video).

As far as my hopes and expectations for the 7DmkII, I was hoping for much better IQ / lower noise, and for higher MP count (the original rumor of 24MP and a sexy sensor tech had me excited). There are some other features I was hoping for as well that are not going to happen (pro body style w/ no knobs, built in grip, etc). However, as a nature and wildlife photographer, the overall improvements to the AF system and at least some IQ improvement over the 7D are enough to make me bite.


----------



## dufflover (Sep 12, 2014)

I think they got off lucky that Nikon didn't fix the crummy burst/buffer in the D7100.

That is relatively easy to fix, yet unless there really is a big surprise in the sensor tech (I still doubt this given the res) then it's not a good sign the next Canon release is going to catch up in this regard.

If we followed some of the claims and logic here we'd be using Intel/AMD processors in our computers from 5 years back - after all they can all browse the internet, watch videos and post on CR just fine


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

I tried a 5DII for a while. I hated it. I wanted nothing but better autofocus. Canon delivered and then some. I wanted sharper lenses. Canon delivers even in the low-end STM lenses and with most of their newer zooms, etc. They're revamping everything before they introduce a D810 competitor, and I think that's a smart move. Now, these improvements might not be what you need, esp. if you're doing landscape where manual focus is used anyways, but for my sports shooting and the weddings I do on weekend, these changes were HUGE. I can focus at f/1.4 with confidence, something I couldn't do on my D700.



takesome1 said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > Wait, what, what'd I say wrong? I'm just saying that everyone is harping on DR, and it's not Canon's forte now, they do other stuff better, who cares?
> ...


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> I'm sorry, but that is the most naive thing you have ever said. Proper exposure is NOT determined by how even the histogram is.



Having all your pixels bunched up in the left third of the histogram is NOT a proper exposure. If you think it is then that explains your problems with noise and banding.

Talk about being naive...read: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=expose+to+the+right



> Proper exposure is determined by where you want the tones of the scene to go, and what you want to preserve (in the case of digital, you always want to preserve highlights, because clipping them means they are gone forever).



He could have shot that scene 3 stops higher and recovered those highlights. 2 stops more and you wouldn't even need to recover them. The scene is underexposed.



> THAT is the difference, right there. BOTH cameras were exposed to preserve the highlights.



The "highlights" are gray. That's not exposing to preserve the highlights.



> Your misunderstanding of the differences is what's become ridiculous. But there they are, the actual histograms.



And the actual proof that you are clueless about exposure. Click the link above. Read. Learn.



> Your frustrated because you seem to think I'm spreading lies and innuendo.



No. Just the hyperbole imagination of someone who has never even touched an Exmor camera.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

unfocused said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway it's useless responding to you, so that was the last one.
> ...



#SickBurn ;D


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Ah, there it is, the most predictable of human behaviors: denial. The data is now directly refuting your claims,



I think you better check the data again 



> The Coke box data (which is a real-world studio example)



LOL! You would get *fired* for doing a studio product shot and delivering a file that underexposed ;D



> The Coke box example IS a real-world example...



Yes it is. If you blow your exposures that bad Exmor might be able to save you.



> It's ETTRed



I hope you spend some time reading about ETTR tonight. It would solve...so many problems.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> I tried a 5DII for a while. I hated it. I wanted nothing but better autofocus. Canon delivered and then some. I wanted sharper lenses. Canon delivers even in the low-end STM lenses and with most of their newer zooms, etc. They're revamping everything before they introduce a D810 competitor, and I think that's a smart move. Now, these improvements might not be what you need, esp. if you're doing landscape where manual focus is used anyways, but for my sports shooting and the weddings I do on weekend, these changes were HUGE. I can focus at f/1.4 with confidence, something I couldn't do on my D700.



Those things have been around a while. When the 7D was released it was a big jump in many ways. At the time the 50D was the step up to FF. The 5D II was the next model up and the 7D was a huge upgrade to the other crop bodies.

Today they release the 7D II Canon's flagship crop body with a sensor that is already in other cameras. AF system that appears to borrowed from the 5D III and 1D X. So nothing on its own that looks ground breaking yet.

I think we will probably see improvements in many areas that will not be hardware related. With more processing power we will probably see less noise out of the camera and other improvements. However they will be improvements we could have duplicated in LR with out of body processing.

And who wouldn't want DR. I wish for it every time I shoot landscapes.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> Because there are a lot of people who can't afford Super-35 cameras dedicated for video like the FS-700, FS-100, C100,300,500 and are hoping for features from top end features to trickle down to "cheap" cameras as soon as in their dreams. That said, the Canon DSLR's do suck for video IF you don't publish to web. ML takes care of it, but you pay tooth through nail for actual first-party support on real video cameras instead of dula purpose DSLR's/video cameras. Remember, 5d mk ii was more than enough to start the "DSLR" video revolution, but mark my words, that revolution was unintentional and more than over now that Canon has released their own cinema cameras. When prodded, they'll release more features, but as of now there are no competitors at the _same price point_, despite what people will try to tell you.



The worst thing to ever happen to the amazing DSLR video revolution Canon accidentally created was when Canon marketing realized they had something good. And if people think some of the posters in these forums are harsh on Canon you should hear what the video guys say about the way Canon squashed and squandered their DSLR video revolution.


----------



## Larry (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> Sorry about my blabbing, I really want a 1dx on this forum . Simple and well-stated.



If you have something to say, blab away, ...but "well-stated"?

Maybe without the "s..." and F......" that you frequently seem unable to express yourself without.

I am no language prude, having spent a 37 year career surrounded by "man-talk" (firefighting), but do we really need/want that class-level of discourse here? :


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

Like I said, it's more than R&D. Canon took a fiscally conservative approach because of their perception of decreased demand due to the recession, so they released less of their R&D at once because they perceived less demand for cameras period. Not the best move for us when we want more features, but it's one of the things to do when an economy tanks. See Thom Hogan's articles on the recession and how it affects camera companies. Meanwhile, Nikon's autofocusing is good enough, but behind for f/1.4 aperture lenses shot wide open. Plusses and minuses with both companies. Canon's sensor is good enough, but behind on DR and low ISO noise. Their 5DIII high ISO is better than the D800. D810 might push high iso better. A7s is the best on market. Camera bodies continually lap each other, it's no big deal, as I've said before. Sony does better sensors but doesn't do so well having fully well-rounded lens systems and professional services to back it up.



dilbert said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > Fair point, but I think DR-commentators aren't giving Canon credit for improving vastly in a lot of other areas. Also, I think the length of the cycle has more to do with the stock market crashing and the recession starting in 2008, the year before the 7D was released I believe.
> ...


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

No problem! Great approach, I wish more people were like you.



flyingSquirrel said:


> Ok, thank you very much to the people that responded to my question about video. I really appreciate it, and I am surprised to learn that video formats already are typically a smaller sensor. Good to know (as one day I will be shooting video).
> 
> As far as my hopes and expectations for the 7DmkII, I was hoping for much better IQ / lower noise, and for higher MP count (the original rumor of 24MP and a sexy sensor tech had me excited). There are some other features I was hoping for as well that are not going to happen (pro body style w/ no knobs, built in grip, etc). However, as a nature and wildlife photographer, the overall improvements to the AF system and at least some IQ improvement over the 7D are enough to make me bite.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

That makes total sense. Based on what you just said, I don't understand the need to talk switching brands, etc. I think just sit tight, and Canon WILL give you what you want. The grass will always be greener in some way, but I understand, I also agree I wish Canon had more DR, definitely nothing wrong with that now that you put it that way.



jrista said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > I've used a D700 and F_____ up an image by underexposing it. Being able to draw out the shadows three stops is great and convenient. I agree with Jrista there. However, after learning from a well-established landscape photographer who shoots with nothing but a 5d classic and then recently a 5d mark ii, bracketing and exposure blending really is THE way to go IF your conditions condone it. There are grad ND filters and reverse ND grad filters for other situations. This is where I agree with jrista. Extra DR is REALLY useful for things like weddings, and I'm not going to say no to it if offered. However, I think it's really just one part of a larger equation in an entire camera system. There are several reasons why most of the wedding industry I'm working in my area sticks to Canon, and they don't include DR at this point unfortunately.
> ...


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

You mean the indie and low-end commercial video guys. It's just one segment of the market. Not everyone is making money off of youtube videos. That said, I wouldn't mind cool trickle down features, just saying there's already a higher end cinema market. With competitive pressure, Canon will trickle down features through firmware updates, but if there's no competitor, then why is the onus on Canon to give all their high end features for a lower price? The C300 is very popular with documentary filmmakers and film schools for a reason.


LetTheRightLensIn said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > Because there are a lot of people who can't afford Super-35 cameras dedicated for video like the FS-700, FS-100, C100,300,500 and are hoping for features from top end features to trickle down to "cheap" cameras as soon as in their dreams. That said, the Canon DSLR's do suck for video IF you don't publish to web. ML takes care of it, but you pay tooth through nail for actual first-party support on real video cameras instead of dula purpose DSLR's/video cameras. Remember, 5d mk ii was more than enough to start the "DSLR" video revolution, but mark my words, that revolution was unintentional and more than over now that Canon has released their own cinema cameras. When prodded, they'll release more features, but as of now there are no competitors at the _same price point_, despite what people will try to tell you.
> ...


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

The words are censored, nbd. I used it for effect, but if it's not your cup of tea, I understand. I'm just tired of hearing people talk about gear they've never touched in their life, hence my harsh words against "armchair" commentators. My words and mentality didn't change that his statement was succinct and on point.



Larry said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry about my blabbing, I really want a 1dx on this forum . Simple and well-stated.
> ...


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> Like I said, it's more than R&D. Canon took a fiscally conservative approach because of their perception of decreased demand due to the recession, so they released less of their R&D at once because they perceived less demand for cameras period. Not the best move for us when we want more features, but it's one of the things to do when an economy tanks. See Thom Hogan's articles on the recession and how it affects camera companies. Meanwhile, Nikon's autofocusing is good enough, but behind for f/1.4 aperture lenses shot wide open. Plusses and minuses with both companies. Canon's sensor is good enough, but behind on DR and low ISO noise. Their 5DIII high ISO is better than the D800. D810 might push high iso better. A7s is the best on market. Camera bodies continually lap each other, it's no big deal, as I've said before. Sony does better sensors but doesn't do so well having fully well-rounded lens systems and professional services to back it up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That whole idea is bull. If you withhold technology for years when you do release it is obsolete.
The opposite is true. If Canon had superior technology when the economy was at its worse they would have released it. If the economy is bad and you have superior technology you release it at that point. The reason you do it is to crush your competition who are struggling. In the long term the recession wouldn't matter to Canon, they make up any short fall when the economy is good again and their competition is crippled.

Canon didn't bring it to the market because Canon didn't have it.

Go back four years and you will see that Cameras were not getting hit hard then. Technology reached a point it was comparable with film finally and many people were switching. The economy tanked for Canon when the PS sales died off. Go back and look at profits, Canon's profits went south because of the PS market. They were having great years when the economy was in the tank. Even in the bad years they spent the same on R&D (yen relative to dollar) and made money.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

I feel ya, bro. I moved back from Nikon to Canon and the DR was a huge letdown. I haven't waited long enough, but I'm sure in your shoes I would feel the same way. My only experience waiting was for the 5DIII's autofocus, and they delivered for my wants and needs.



jrista said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > That makes total sense. Based on what you just said, I don't understand the need to talk switching brands, etc. I think just sit tight, and Canon WILL give you what you want. The grass will always be greener in some way, but I understand, I also agree I wish Canon had more DR, definitely nothing wrong with that now that you put it that way.
> ...


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

Look up some of Thom Hogan's articles on the approaches of different camera companies to the market. Canon is the most fiscally conservative, offering advances in features that don't cost them as much monetarily in arms races to higher megapixels, etc. Nikon loads up DR and megapixels on their D3100->3200 models and it doesn't necessarily work better at attracting consumers. People like us who are technical and get into the specs, sure, but the average camera user is interested in convenience of use more than anything else. The point and shoot market disappeared and all the camera companies are going for higher price point and shoots and MILC's now. That's probably not the way to "save" the camera industry, and they'll need something more like Apple where they use current technologies to make cameras more convenient than ever, but that's a separate tangent and long topic to cover here. Also something Hogan discusses.

Also, ask an engineer working in product development who's worked closely with marketing, they'll tell you the same thing about releasing products over time. Part of my background is that I was first taught my technical basics by a NASA engineer, so this is part of the knowledge he taught me on how tech companies stay alive.



takesome1 said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said, it's more than R&D. Canon took a fiscally conservative approach because of their perception of decreased demand due to the recession, so they released less of their R&D at once because they perceived less demand for cameras period. Not the best move for us when we want more features, but it's one of the things to do when an economy tanks. See Thom Hogan's articles on the recession and how it affects camera companies. Meanwhile, Nikon's autofocusing is good enough, but behind for f/1.4 aperture lenses shot wide open. Plusses and minuses with both companies. Canon's sensor is good enough, but behind on DR and low ISO noise. Their 5DIII high ISO is better than the D800. D810 might push high iso better. A7s is the best on market. Camera bodies continually lap each other, it's no big deal, as I've said before. Sony does better sensors but doesn't do so well having fully well-rounded lens systems and professional services to back it up.
> ...


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > That makes total sense. Based on what you just said, I don't understand the need to talk switching brands, etc. I think just sit tight, and Canon WILL give you what you want. The grass will always be greener in some way, but I understand, I also agree I wish Canon had more DR, definitely nothing wrong with that now that you put it that way.
> ...



I think everyone can respect that opinion. You have your own personal shooting reasons why Canon doesn't always work the best for you. What I like is that you don't take the flame thrower to Canon for it where so many others on here seem to. Thanks for being an objective voice of reason. Debating the specs and numbers is one thing. Saying everything is a cow pie is another. I love my 6D. It does everything I need. I don't do landscapes like you (btw you're work is amazing, what you've posted). But if I did, I might agree with you that the sony does a little better job there. I've actually been looking a lot at the A7 myself but the 12mp video geared one for a new toy. In any case, let's wait to see what the 7d2 actually YIELDS.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> Look up some of Thom Hogan's articles on the approaches of different camera companies to the market. Canon is the most fiscally conservative, offering advances in features that don't cost them as much monetarily in arms races to higher megapixels, etc. Nikon loads up DR and megapixels on their D3100->3200 models and it doesn't necessarily work better at attracting consumers. People like us who are technical and get into the specs, sure, but the average camera user is interested in convenience of use more than anything else. The point and shoot market disappeared and all the camera companies are going for higher price point and shoots and MILC's now. That's probably not the way to "save" the camera industry, and they'll need something more like Apple where they use current technologies to make cameras more convenient than ever, but that's a separate tangent and long topic to cover here. Also something Hogan discusses.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think there would be more reliable analysis in the financial sector on this one.
Witholding your R&D doesn't move your business forward. 
Not in the technology sector.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> Also, ask an engineer working in product development who's worked closely with marketing, they'll tell you the same thing about releasing products over time. Part of my background is that I was first taught my technical basics by a NASA engineer, so this is part of the knowledge he taught me on how tech companies stay alive.



While I have the upmost respect for NASA and what they have accomplished. In my years working with the government I would say they would be the last group I would take business advice from.

Five years ago Canon's product was superior to Nikons. They let Nikon catch up. If what you say is true I am not sure how that plays out as sound business strategy.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

Last I checked, Canon's been doing fine. Sony might have some recent gains, but it doesn't take the fact away that Canon is still ahead financially by a long shot in the camera department, whether or not you're comparing just gains and losses from the previous year. I agree that Canon can be doing way better with better DR, but I'm sure they'll come ahead regardless because they make their products and lineup support better in ways that don't cost them much but help with repeat business, i.e. customer support. There's only so much you can improve a camera before gains are diminishing, so they're drawing out improvements by emphasizing other places in their business. Like I said, talk with someone familiar with product development. Or a financial analyst, whatever. The experts in their sectors are better commentators than the bloggers from Engadget, etc. Thom just has a great eye on these kind of topics and he's been able to predict the industry at a few key points.



takesome1 said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > Look up some of Thom Hogan's articles on the approaches of different camera companies to the market. Canon is the most fiscally conservative, offering advances in features that don't cost them as much monetarily in arms races to higher megapixels, etc. Nikon loads up DR and megapixels on their D3100->3200 models and it doesn't necessarily work better at attracting consumers. People like us who are technical and get into the specs, sure, but the average camera user is interested in convenience of use more than anything else. The point and shoot market disappeared and all the camera companies are going for higher price point and shoots and MILC's now. That's probably not the way to "save" the camera industry, and they'll need something more like Apple where they use current technologies to make cameras more convenient than ever, but that's a separate tangent and long topic to cover here. Also something Hogan discusses.
> ...


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

He works under a private contractor that contracts to NASA. Gets better pay that way because federal employees working directly for NASA can't make more than a US senator. Way to generalize and project. Five years ago, Canon was NOT better than Nikon. It was the reverse, Nikon had better supertelephotos, better 70-200 VR, better full frame autofocus systems. Canon had a better studio / landscape camera. They're now neck and neck with the D800/810 and Canon's 5DIII, 1DX and telephoto updates. Try BOTH product lineups like I have and THEN comment on how Canon "used to be better than" Nikon. Six years and earlier, Canon had better stuff when Nikon just had the D2x. If you've run a tech company, please bring up that background. It's easier to make comments on how to run a company when you aren't actually doing, same as it's easier to tell how to run a country without actually holding office as the president. I'm just going off of what I've been taught by much smarter people in my life and off of my real-world experience, which is more than what a lot of armchair commentators can say here.



takesome1 said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > Also, ask an engineer working in product development who's worked closely with marketing, they'll tell you the same thing about releasing products over time. Part of my background is that I was first taught my technical basics by a NASA engineer, so this is part of the knowledge he taught me on how tech companies stay alive.
> ...


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 12, 2014)

I thought the wax look everyone complains about was based video compression. No? I love the skin tones I get on my 6D. I haven't felt like I've gotten any compression there or wax. I did recently shoot video on my 6D doing an ice bucket challenge on myself (I'm from New Orleans' so it's our thing) and though it was good, it was kinda worse than I expected. Even with. A 35 sigma art 



jrista said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > I think everyone can respect that opinion. You have your own personal shooting reasons why Canon doesn't always work the best for you. What I like is that you don't take the flame thrower to Canon for it where so many others on here seem to. Thanks for being an objective voice of reason. Debating the specs and numbers is one thing. Saying everything is a cow pie is another. I love my 6D. It does everything I need. I don't do landscapes like you (btw you're work is amazing, what you've posted). But if I did, I might agree with you that the sony does a little better job there. I've actually been looking a lot at the A7 myself but the 12mp video geared one for a new toy. In any case, let's wait to see what the 7d2 actually YIELDS.
> ...


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> He works under a private contractor that contracts to NASA. Gets better pay that way because federal employees working directly for NASA can't make more than a US senator. Way to generalize and project. Five years ago, Canon was NOT better than Nikon. It was the reverse, Nikon had better supertelephotos, better 70-200 VR, better full frame autofocus systems. Canon had a better studio / landscape camera. They're now neck and neck with the D800/810 and Canon's 5DIII, 1DX and telephoto updates. Try BOTH product lineups like I have and THEN comment on how Canon "used to be better than" Nikon. Six years and earlier, Canon had better stuff when Nikon just had the D2x. If you've run a tech company, please bring up that background. It's easier to make comments on how to run a company when you aren't actually doing, same as it's easier to tell how to run a country without actually holding office as the president. I'm just going off of what I've been taught by much smarter people in my life and off of my real-world experience, which is more than what a lot of armchair commentators can say here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Who was commenting on how to run a company? Were talking about actions the company has taken.
I wasn't even saying Canon's actions were wrong, no 20/20 commentary either from me. What I was saying is your arm chair analysis of what Canon did with R&D the last five years is silly. You provided the 20/20 analysis, I commented on that.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

I think he's talking about a wax look after pulling shadows etc, but he'll prob have a better answer than I do. I've gotten that before when trying to do something like HDR. Exposure blending takes care of it, but like I said before, it's not ideal in certain situations. I think if your exposure is spot on and DR in the scene is limited, i.e. you use flash to balance with the sky for a portrait, etc, it's not that big of a difference, at least enough for any wedding clients to notice. That said, the high detail and wide dynamic range will be great for nature that jrista shoots where DR can be challenging, and for fashion studio shots only if you have enough time to touch up. The level of detail is actually unflattering if a client has any blemishes, so my opinion is that the D810 is better for things like fashion, but not so much for wedding and family portraits, that deal where volume can be a problem and cost-prohibitive or photoshop / magazine-style touchups.



PureClassA said:


> I thought the wax look everyone complains about was based video compression. No? I love the skin tones I get on my 6D. I haven't felt like I've gotten any compression there or wax. I did recently shoot video on my 6D doing an ice bucket challenge on myself (I'm from New Orleans' so it's our thing) and though it was good, it was kinda worse than I expected. Even with. A 35 sigma art
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

The good old five-year-old parroted retort, good one.

Lol, you talk about how Canon should release this tech or that tech years ago, and how their business is hurting from it, and how you're sure that's not how companies should operate, and then I'm the one commentating from the armchair? You're the one who just made an unfounded claim that Canon was doing better than Nikon five years ago (from a technology standpoint, from what I understood)! I've shot night and day with blood and sweat with BOTH camera systems from the past five years. Can you really say the same? You say that a planned product release cycle is bullshit? Go talk to any college professor in hardware development and release, I'm sure they'll tell you the same. But I suppose you're the expert.



takesome1 said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > He works under a private contractor that contracts to NASA. Gets better pay that way because federal employees working directly for NASA can't make more than a US senator. Way to generalize and project. Five years ago, Canon was NOT better than Nikon. It was the reverse, Nikon had better supertelephotos, better 70-200 VR, better full frame autofocus systems. Canon had a better studio / landscape camera. They're now neck and neck with the D800/810 and Canon's 5DIII, 1DX and telephoto updates. Try BOTH product lineups like I have and THEN comment on how Canon "used to be better than" Nikon. Six years and earlier, Canon had better stuff when Nikon just had the D2x. If you've run a tech company, please bring up that background. It's easier to make comments on how to run a company when you aren't actually doing, same as it's easier to tell how to run a country without actually holding office as the president. I'm just going off of what I've been taught by much smarter people in my life and off of my real-world experience, which is more than what a lot of armchair commentators can say here.
> ...


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 12, 2014)

Apparently this blog can't accept a 1MB image. ;D I've been trying to load one for 15 mins since the topic of HDR was mentioned.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 12, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> Apparently this blog can't accept a 1MB image. ;D I've been trying to load one for 15 mins since the topic of HDR was mentioned.



Had to load it from the iPad...sheesh!! Ok So here's an old fart 7D triple RAW shot tripod mounted from a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. I got no complaints and the high end Champagne bar in downtown New Orleans didn't offer any. They were tickled pink. Again.. its all about how far you're willing to go ;-) HDR of triple RAWs processed in LR 5


----------



## WillThompson (Sep 12, 2014)

So what is the min AF EV?


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

Good question.



WillThompson said:


> So what is the min AF EV?


----------



## Woody (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:



> Different brushes for different paintings. My stance is this. Canon already excels at everything else. They alrady have a phenomenal AF system. They already have some of the best frame rates in the business. They already have the better frame buffer handling (Canons just keep on going, and going, and going, and going, while Nikons usually stop dead), etc. Canon already excels at everything else. They even excel at customer support...it's truly second to none, worldwide. So where could they give photographers the single greatest gains? Sensor IQ. It's the only thing they are behind on...and the realities of how far behind the competition they are only become more and more apparent each time a new camera is released (from anyone, not just Canon).



I honestly believe that if Canon is able to produce a sensor that is as good as what Sony has, they will be back in the same position they were in during the early digital photography days. They will trounce the competition and may even cause a few companies to either collapse or at least withdraw from the camera business.


----------



## xps (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks. I honestly have no vendetta against Canon. I think most of the Canonites here have lumped me in with "the rest" because I'm not raving about everything Canon anymore. I want what I want, but that doesn't mean I'm going to diss Canon for everything they do. They still make great cameras...however they are falling very, very far behind on that one critical front: raw sensor IQ.
> ...


----------



## canon1dxman (Sep 12, 2014)

D750 announced formally

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/09/12/nikon-d750-promo-product-tour-hands-on-videos.aspx/#more-80352


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

+1.


Woody said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Different brushes for different paintings. My stance is this. Canon already excels at everything else. They alrady have a phenomenal AF system. They already have some of the best frame rates in the business. They already have the better frame buffer handling (Canons just keep on going, and going, and going, and going, while Nikons usually stop dead), etc. Canon already excels at everything else. They even excel at customer support...it's truly second to none, worldwide. So where could they give photographers the single greatest gains? Sensor IQ. It's the only thing they are behind on...and the realities of how far behind the competition they are only become more and more apparent each time a new camera is released (from anyone, not just Canon).
> ...


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

Just saw it too. As a former D700 shooter, not my cup of tea. I still firmly believe that the D700's successor in spirit is the 5DIII. This is more of a D610 successor and should be called a D620. D750 is an arbitrary and deceptive naming convention, probably chosen by the marketing department. 1/4000th of a second, 1/200th sync speed, SD cards, and D7000/600-type controls mean this is a D600 successor, not a D700 one. I liked that I could stick a battery grip on the D700 with a D3/D3s/D4 EN-EL4(a) battery and sputter away at 8fps if I really wanted to (I just used it for a few frames at key moments for the most part, pop, pop, pop). Happy with my mk III, although this is a great camera if you're just looking for a D610 upgrade (essentially a D71007000:750610 analogous upgrade). 



canon1dxman said:


> D750 announced formally
> 
> http://nikonrumors.com/2014/09/12/nikon-d750-promo-product-tour-hands-on-videos.aspx/#more-80352


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

I'd assume it's a sony exmor sensor like on the D610, Nikon FX just designates that it's full frame. DX just means crop sensor. If it's Nikon-made, that'll be a first in a while (and as you already know) as Nikon switched to having other companies fabricate for a while since their resources and sensor capabilities dwindled (Sony, Toshiba sensors outsourced). If this is indeed a switch, perhaps it's part of some expiration agreement with Sony, but let me know if you can find out more details about this as I'm also quite curious to know. 

I think on the consumer market, the D750 should give the 5DIII a good run for the money, but on the pro market, it's somewhat crippled so it still doesn't compete with the D810 and the D4s and hence the 5DIII. I think I would find this useful for low light because of the -3EV and where shutter speeds don't go past 1/4000, however the 15 cross type points and smaller 51 af point area spread could prove problematic with f/1.4 aperture lenses like it did with my D700. 1/4000 shutter speed will also be an issue with f/1.4 aperture lenses in the middle of the day, although to be fair, the best light is in the shade. So it'll prob be better DR vs. better ergonomics and better extreme scenario (exotic wide aperture, ultra-low light or in bright light with wide aperture) autofocus on the 5DIII, usually the type of shooting I do, and better buffer as you mentioned.

In my experience, I always had to shoot at f/3.2 on f/2.8 zooms to get accurate autofocus on the D700 at the exterior points, while I can always shoot f/1.4 and f/1.2 on my 5DIII with no problems on outer focus points with cross-type only enabled.



jrista said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > Just saw it too. As a former D700 shooter, not my cup of tea. I still firmly believe that the D700's successor in spirit is the 5DIII. This is more of a D610 successor and should be called a D620. D750 is an arbitrary and deceptive naming convention, probably chosen by the marketing department. 1/4000th of a second, 1/200th sync speed, SD cards, and D7000/600-type controls mean this is a D600 successor, not a D700 one. I liked that I could stick a battery grip on the D700 with a D3/D3s/D4 EN-EL4(a) battery and sputter away at 8fps if I really wanted to (I just used it for a few frames at key moments for the most part, pop, pop, pop). Happy with my mk III, although this is a great camera if you're just looking for a D610 upgrade (essentially a D71007000:750610 analogous upgrade).
> ...


----------



## hemanthforcanonrumors (Sep 12, 2014)

Again the DSLR war between Nikon and Canon has started. I would like to however wait for the actual announcement from Canon themselves rather than read the rumours. D750 announcement is good.. 7 fps is good enough for action and sports.. but the buffer depth will decide that.. Lets wait and watch on how long can D750 can shoot continuously at 6.5 fps before slowing down.

Speaking of 7D2.. 10 fps is super.. and 65 AF point's is a welcome move.. 19 AF points was not all that great but was still doing its job decently. The other point i want to really see is the high ISO capbility of 7D2. My expectation is if 7D2 can shoot an absolute noiseless image at ISO 6400 and a good usable image files upto ISO 8000 or so then it's more than enough for a APS-C sensor. 

My take is Canon will position 7D2 more or less the same or may be tad more $$ than D750 here though it might be APS-C sensor as against the Nikon's full frame.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 12, 2014)

hemanthforcanonrumors said:


> My expectation is if 7D2 can shoot an absolute noiseless image at ISO 6400 and a good usable image files upto ISO 8000 or so then it's more than enough for a APS-C sensor.



Noiseless at ISO 6400? Hell, that's where even the 6D is having some noise. To expect that from a sensor of 40% the size sounds quite unrealistic. Original 7D had bordeline ISO 1600 performance. Even ISO 3200 with acceptable noise on the 7D2 would be quite a feat IMHO.


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 12, 2014)

New here.. but not new to CMOS/CCD imaging.

Looks like there's a bit of fixation on ISO.. which is simply how much gain the camera has between the sensor and ADC.

Fundamentally the sensitivity of a camera is defined by 

QuantumEfficiency / ReadoutNoisePerUnitArea

Check out DxO data and it's hinting at what's going on.. namely the readout noise (as measured in electrons at the sensor) is roughly constant above a certain ISO. Look at the DxO data and you'll see the Dynamic range fall by one stop for every increase in ISO above a certain figure. In the Nikon D800/D600 case it falls by roughly 1 stop for every doubling in ISO all the way from ISO100... Increasing ISO just clips the image, you'd only want to use ISOs higher than 100 if you're using in camera JPEG, shoot raw, then stick with ISO100 and be prepared to "underexpose" then fix in post.

With my ancient old 30D it means there's no point in shooting RAW beyond ISO800.. I might as well underexpose by a stop at ISO800 to get the equivalent of ISO1600 or 2 stops to get the equivalent of ISO3200, as increasing the ISO just raises the noise and signal by roughly the same amount, thus clipping the hi-lights, using ISO800 and underexposing for low light means I never get clipping.

Now if we're talking in camera JPEGs, then it's all down to the processing algorithm and that could be where the 7DII really scores, after all who wants to shoot 10 seconds of 20Mpix at 10 frames a second in RAW.

So the question isn't really "what ISO does it do". That's like asking what's the highest speed shown on your speedometer, doesn't mean your car can go that fast.

IMHO the best published test will be once DxO do their stuff, and I'll predict now that the 7DII will be the first Canon APS-C to beat 1100ISO (at A4 print equivalent).. maybe. Good, but not as sensitive for A4 printing as a Classic 5D, I wouldn't buy a 7DII if I had a 7D just to get better ISO, I might do it for improved JPEG processing that means I could make use of a higher ISO but that's different

Personally I'm still waiting for Canon to introduce colour recognition via depth in the sensor, (essentially three overlayed CMOS sensors) that would buy almost 2 stops of performance.. but I think it's unlikely this will be the camera to do that... that or using as many ADCs as there are rows on the chip like the recent sCMOS sensors.. now THOSE really are awesome chips!


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 12, 2014)

rfdesigner said:


> If you shoot raw, then stick with ISO100 and be prepared to "underexpose" then fix in post.



well that's not good advice!


----------



## Tugela (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> You mean the indie and low-end commercial video guys. It's just one segment of the market. Not everyone is making money off of youtube videos. That said, I wouldn't mind cool trickle down features, just saying there's already a higher end cinema market. With competitive pressure, Canon will trickle down features through firmware updates, but if there's no competitor, then why is the onus on Canon to give all their high end features for a lower price? The C300 is very popular with documentary filmmakers and film schools for a reason.
> 
> 
> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



But that is just it, there ARE competitors. Basically what Canon are doing is conceding market share in that segment. Sure, their prosumer products are not competing with their professional products, but within the prosumer part of the market they are not even in the ball game. 

If someone wants to buy a prosumer DSLR type camera with an emphasis on video and has done their research, they will buy a Panasonic or a Sony. I would be surprised if Canon makes many, or even any, sales to those buyers since their current offerings are so primitive compared to their competition.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> Look up some of Thom Hogan's articles on the approaches of different camera companies to the market. Canon is the most fiscally conservative, offering advances in features that don't cost them as much monetarily in arms races to higher megapixels, etc. Nikon loads up DR and megapixels on their D3100->3200 models and it doesn't necessarily work better at attracting consumers. People like us who are technical and get into the specs, sure, but the average camera user is interested in convenience of use more than anything else. The point and shoot market disappeared and all the camera companies are going for higher price point and shoots and MILC's now. That's probably not the way to "save" the camera industry, and they'll need something more like Apple where they use current technologies to make cameras more convenient than ever, but that's a separate tangent and long topic to cover here. Also something Hogan discusses.
> 
> Also, ask an engineer working in product development who's worked closely with marketing, they'll tell you the same thing about releasing products over time. Part of my background is that I was first taught my technical basics by a NASA engineer, so this is part of the knowledge he taught me on how tech companies stay alive.
> 
> ...



Not an engineer, but I am a scientist who works on developing technical products. Our philosophy is to produce products that are so advanced over whatever else is out there that we obliterate them. Cut their revenue stream to zero, so they can't afford to compete with our tech in the future. We rub our hands with glee when they ration out their tech because it means that we can destroy them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> While Nero's comments were not on the serious side, I am not aware of the vast improvements Canon has made in other areas that would be demonstrated with the specs listed for the 7D II. To me it looks like a rehash using existing components.
> Nothing ground breaking yet, maybe when the announcement is official Canon will reveal something we do not see on the surface of the specs.



How about a dedicated PDAF system with 65 cross-type spread all across the frame? Or the 150K-pixel RGB+IR metering sensor? Oh, wait...no one cares about _that_ sensor. :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> Five years ago Canon's product was superior to Nikons. They let Nikon catch up. If what you say is true I am not sure how that plays out as sound business strategy.



You're right, it's a terrible business strategy. That's why, over the past five years Canon has steadily lost dSLR market share to Nikon, and Canon is no longer the market leader by a significant margin. 

Oh, wait...Nikon hasn't gained market share, and Canon is still the dSLR market leader by a significant margin. 

I guess Canon's business strategy is sound, although your opinion of it is apparently not.


----------



## pknight (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> I'm just tired of hearing people talk about gear they've never touched in their life,



I agree. Let's shut this thread down.


----------



## EOS AE1 (Sep 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Five years ago Canon's product was superior to Nikons. They let Nikon catch up. If what you say is true I am not sure how that plays out as sound business strategy.
> ...



Who says Nikon is the only competition?

Someone who is not a Sport/Action shooter better buys a smaller Fuji or Olympus camera theses days.

They offer nearly Canons APS-C quality and are great for portraits and travel.

I can not recommend Canon Rebels to family and friends anymore. :-[

For what they do they are big Dinosaurs.


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 12, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > If you shoot raw, then stick with ISO100 and be prepared to "underexpose" then fix in post.
> ...



Care to explain why shooting at ISO100 but underexposed by 2 stops is worse than shooting at ISO400 on a Nikon 800/600 series?

Numbers are useful here.


----------



## EOS AE1 (Sep 12, 2014)

rfdesigner said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > rfdesigner said:
> ...



To get the best out of the sensor you best shoot ETTR (expose to the right).
Underexposure will only result in losing tonal values.


----------



## RickWagoner (Sep 12, 2014)

pknight said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just tired of hearing people talk about gear they've never touched in their life,
> ...



Yeah same here. This has been going on and off for 4-5 years, talking about the 7dii. Once the reviews come in and people get them in hand there will be peace, but that will change once the 80D comes in and questions the 7dii hierarchy, after that...it will be more years of 7Diii arguments.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 12, 2014)

EOS AE1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Yes they are... unless you're a professional who needs a real lens and a great system. Please. Hang up the "Canon is old and obsolete" sort of tripe. It's ridiculous. You like something else better? That's ok. But folks on here acting like Canon is some old man in a wheel chair sputtering along is just absurd.


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 12, 2014)

EOS AE1 said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> ...



Ah.. you're not seeing what I'm getting at.

Lets say 

Readout Noise = 40 electrons at 100ISO and 20electrons at 200ISO and 10electrons at 400ISO, 7electrons at 800ISO and 6electrons at 1600ISO... (low ISO being ADC dynamic range limited, high ISO being sensor limited)

not dissimilar to my 30D.

The SNR for the same amount of light is almost identical at 800ISO as it is at 1600ISO.. but 800ISO gives you more headroom... this is what I do for low light "people" photography where playing around isn't possible.

now if you're ETTRing then yup that may be optimal.. but that isn't exactly what I'm talking about... although it's all related.

Point is on the Nikon 800/600 series.. the readout noise at ISO100 is going to be pretty much identical to ISO1600 etc. because the readout amplifiers/ADC of the camera has massive dynamic range... the SNR, and so on is all dependant on the amount of light more or less regardless of ISO... might as well give maximum dynamic range (ISO100) and then just grab as much light as the situation allows, only limiting the light once you hit the ADCs rail.


----------



## EOS AE1 (Sep 12, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> EOS AE1 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



The thing is, i bet Pros are not who make the most money for Canon.
It´s the Rebels who are sold in the double digit millions.

And the Rebels look less and less like a good alternative for average Joe.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

EOS AE1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Canon sells more dSLRs than all mirrorless cameras from all makers combined. MILC makers aren't really offering any significant competition to Canon in terms of market share. 

If your family and friends number in the hundreds of thousands, your recommendation might affect market share.  

I do agree that MILC's smaller size is convenient, that's why I have an EOS M.


----------



## EOS AE1 (Sep 12, 2014)

rfdesigner said:


> EOS AE1 said:
> 
> 
> > rfdesigner said:
> ...



Noise is not the problem from 100 to 400 ISO but when you loose 50% of your tonal values it is.


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 12, 2014)

EOS AE1 said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > EOS AE1 said:
> ...



And how do you lose 50% of your tonal values when the SNR per colour channel is more or less identical?


----------



## EOS AE1 (Sep 12, 2014)

rfdesigner said:


> EOS AE1 said:
> 
> 
> > rfdesigner said:
> ...



Because that´s how digital image files work.

When you underexpose and have all your data sitting at the left side of your histogram, you will have less tonal values.







http://digital-photography-school.com/exposing-to-the-right/


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

EOS AE1 said:


> And the Rebels look less and less like a good alternative for average Joe.



Perhaps. But MILCs seem even less good to that 'average Joe'.


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 12, 2014)

EOS AE1 said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > EOS AE1 said:
> ...



Sorry to break it to you.. but if your noise covers the bottom couple of bits of the ADC (and readout noise will be present in the bright bits too) then simply throwing away more and more bits of your ADC converting a very noisy signal does not improve the SNR.

IMPORTANT: SNR isn't just Bight/Dark ratio.. it's also manifest in Bright/"noise texture in the bright bit" ratio.

I think you're aware of this but aren't sure how to model it?.. 

If you have a Bright bit that is say 200electrons, and noise of 10 electrons you will see a "texture" in the bright area at about 1/20th of the brightness.. devoting more and more ADC bits to that texture won't make the picture any better.


----------



## EOS AE1 (Sep 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> EOS AE1 said:
> 
> 
> > And the Rebels look less and less like a good alternative for average Joe.
> ...



Why? Because of the market share?
I guess that is because of missinformation.

Im sure most people i know would prefer having a smaller m43 system camera than a bigger Rebel. 
But they buy Nikon or Canon because that´s what all people buy. 

I recommended a 600D to my best friend 2 years ago.
He did not use it often, because it was too big. He did not want to carry it.
So it was sitting around with ~800 images taken when he sold it.

Now he has a smaller Olympus E-PL and he takes much more pictures.


----------



## EOS AE1 (Sep 12, 2014)

rfdesigner said:


> EOS AE1 said:
> 
> 
> > rfdesigner said:
> ...



Again you don´t seem to get it. So try it yourself.

Underexposure by two Stops to get a small noise advantage is not a good thing to do.


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 12, 2014)

EOS AE1 said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > EOS AE1 said:
> ...



You just proved you missed something

I DON'T get a noise advantage... neither do I get a noise disadvantage

What I do get is a dynamic range advantage.


----------



## EOS AE1 (Sep 12, 2014)

> If ETTR is not possible, it is still important to maximize exposure, i.e., to push the histogram as far to the right as possible at base ISO even if not to the right-hand edge. Let me emphasize that maximizing exposure means finding an acceptable combination of shutter speed and f-ratio that gives the largest possible exposure, and it does not involve the use of ISO, which is not part of exposure. For these purposes, ISO remains at its base value. This allows capturing the greatest possible signal with least relative noise and creates the best foundation for the final image. If this maximal exposure is not ETTR, then brightening can be added to achieve an image of the desired brightness. But first comes the setting of exposure, then comes the brightening. Now the question arises: where should this brightening be done: using in-camera ISO or during raw processing or both?
> 
> The answer to this question depends on the "ISO-nature" of the camera. With an ISO-invariant camera (one whose read noise does not change with the camera's ISO setting), one could do either (brighten in-camera or during raw processing), but there are advantages to shooting dark (letting your image remain unbrightened) at the base ISO and brightening during raw processing. This will typically result in a final image with better IQ and less chance of clipped highlights. With an ISO-variant camera (one whose read noise decreases with increased ISO), the benefit is in favor of brightening with added in-camera ISO, which will typically result in less read noise than shooting darker and pushing in raw processing. Some cameras are partly-ISO-invariant, becoming ISO-invariant only after reaching a given ISO level, say 800 or 1600. Here there are benefits from increasing ISO in-camera, if needed, up to this level and then effecting any further brightening, if required, during raw processing. More on this topic can be found in Note 5 on page 2 of Exposure vs. Brightening and you can learn more about the ISO-nature of your camera from sensorgen.info.
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6641165460/ettr-exposed



so i never underexpose. i always shoot ETTR. 
and from my own experience the results are better then having the data sitting on the left side of the histogram. 

with a D800 as, as you say ISO invariant camera, i would then underexpose instead of raising ISO and later brighten in LR.

but you say it exactly the other way around.. or im just not getting it today (happens).


----------



## heptagon (Sep 12, 2014)

rfdesigner said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > rfdesigner said:
> ...




You have two main sources of noise at low ISO:
1) Quantum noise
2) Readout noise

Quantum noise is due to the fact that photons behave like particles and if you on average expect 10000 photons in a pixel in reality you get sometimes more and sometimes less leading to a Poisson distribution around that average value. The quatum noise is the square root of the number of photons e.g. 100 for 10000 photons and 10 for 100 photons.

The readout noise is various electronic noise and depends on the amplification factor and other interference. With the new Sony sensors the readout noise is virtually the same on ISO 100 to ISO 6400 e.g. 5 electrons. With the canon sensors the readout noise is better for high ISO e.g. 3 electrons but worse at low ISO e.g. 30 electrons at ISO 100.

If you look at a bright pixel you get 10000 electrons from the photons +-100 electrons due to Poisson statistics (even a perfect sensor will get that). The S/N ratio is 100.

If you look at a dark pixel you get 100 electrons from photons and +-10 electrons from Poisson statistics. The S/N ratio is 10.

Now factor in the read noise.
- Bright pixel:
-- Canon: 100 and 30 => 104 total, S/N 96
-- Nikon: 100 and 5 => 100 total, S/N 100
- Not much difference.

- Dark pixel:
-- Canon: 10 and 30 => 32 total, S/N 3.1
-- Nikon: 10 and 5 =>11 total, S/N 9.1
- Almost a factor of 3!

If you do the same calculation at high ISO, the Canon sensor gets a little advantage.


From this we can conclude that BRIGHT pixels have the SAME QUALITY with a Canon and a Sony sensor. 
But DARK pixels suffer from readout noise and here the Sony sensor is much better.

So if you do not underexpose or lift the shadows in your pictures, you will be OK with current Canon sensors.


EDIT: Use RMS for noise addition.


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 12, 2014)

EOS AE1 said:


> > If ETTR is not possible, it is still important to maximize exposure, i.e., to push the histogram as far to the right as possible at base ISO even if not to the right-hand edge. Let me emphasize that maximizing exposure means finding an acceptable combination of shutter speed and f-ratio that gives the largest possible exposure, and it does not involve the use of ISO, which is not part of exposure. For these purposes, ISO remains at its base value. This allows capturing the greatest possible signal with least relative noise and creates the best foundation for the final image. If this maximal exposure is not ETTR, then brightening can be added to achieve an image of the desired brightness. But first comes the setting of exposure, then comes the brightening. Now the question arises: where should this brightening be done: using in-camera ISO or during raw processing or both?
> >
> > The answer to this question depends on the "ISO-nature" of the camera. With an ISO-invariant camera (one whose read noise does not change with the camera's ISO setting), one could do either (brighten in-camera or during raw processing), but there are advantages to shooting dark (letting your image remain unbrightened) at the base ISO and brightening during raw processing. This will typically result in a final image with better IQ and less chance of clipped highlights. With an ISO-variant camera (one whose read noise decreases with increased ISO), the benefit is in favor of brightening with added in-camera ISO, which will typically result in less read noise than shooting darker and pushing in raw processing. Some cameras are partly-ISO-invariant, becoming ISO-invariant only after reaching a given ISO level, say 800 or 1600. Here there are benefits from increasing ISO in-camera, if needed, up to this level and then effecting any further brightening, if required, during raw processing. More on this topic can be found in Note 5 on page 2 of Exposure vs. Brightening and you can learn more about the ISO-nature of your camera from sensorgen.info.
> >
> ...



I'm not disagreeing with the above. ETTR will always be optimal where the noise is also fully captured, the point of ETTR is to reduce sensitivity to EXACTLY the point where you don't blow the image. In dynamic situations (where the 7DII is very likely to be used) ETTR probably won't be an option (unless by some miracle Canon have implemented this as an option within the evaluative metering mode)

The situation I was pointing out was: 

You are at the limit of the light that you have.. You can't open the lens any more, you can't reduce the speed any more, it's better to stop at 800ISO than just keep reaching for more and more ISO... what you are saying is you can reach up to the point where you don't quite blow the image.. true.. but the benefit is relatively limited and the difference between losing a tiny bit of SNR or clipping, then it's worth sacrificing the SNR fractionally.

So.. ETTR for still situations (been there done that, agree it works)
Stop at ISO800 for dynamic and just under expose where you would otherwise reach for more ISO.


----------



## EOS AE1 (Sep 12, 2014)

rfdesigner said:


> EOS AE1 said:
> 
> 
> > > If ETTR is not possible, it is still important to maximize exposure, i.e., to push the histogram as far to the right as possible at base ISO even if not to the right-hand edge. Let me emphasize that maximizing exposure means finding an acceptable combination of shutter speed and f-ratio that gives the largest possible exposure, and it does not involve the use of ISO, which is not part of exposure. For these purposes, ISO remains at its base value. This allows capturing the greatest possible signal with least relative noise and creates the best foundation for the final image. If this maximal exposure is not ETTR, then brightening can be added to achieve an image of the desired brightness. But first comes the setting of exposure, then comes the brightening. Now the question arises: where should this brightening be done: using in-camera ISO or during raw processing or both?
> ...



well what you said is "shoot at base iso 100 and underexpose... fix later in RAW processor". 




> Increasing ISO just clips the image, you'd only want to use ISOs higher than 100 if you're using in camera JPEG, shoot raw, then stick with ISO100 and be prepared to "underexpose" then fix in post.


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 12, 2014)

heptagon said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> ...




Oh boy....


I do this stuff every day for work.

Yes poisson noise is also present, but as the two situations I'm comparing here have the same light levels, the poissn noise is identical, so we can drop it out of the equations.

Also you don't just add the noise. it's an RMS.. (in volts) so that changes the maths a little, Sqrt(Noise A+ Noise B)


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 12, 2014)

EOS AE1 said:


> So.. ETTR for still situations (been there done that, agree it works)
> Stop at ISO800 for dynamic and just under expose where you would otherwise reach for more ISO.



well what you said is "shoot at base iso 100 and underexpose... fix later in RAW". 




> Increasing ISO just clips the image, you'd only want to use ISOs higher than 100 if you're using in camera JPEG, shoot raw, then stick with ISO100 and be prepared to "underexpose" then fix in post.


[/quote]

That was in reference to the Nikon D800/600 which have enough dynamic range in their amplifiers and ADC to get sensor limited readout noise at ISO100. On Canon the readout noise more or less stops falling at ISO800..


----------



## EOS AE1 (Sep 12, 2014)

rfdesigner said:


> Yes poisson noise is also present, but as the two situations I'm comparing here have the same light levels, the poissn noise is identical, so we can drop it out of the equations.



he is comparing sensor behavior. the light level IS the same for both.

it´s the difference between an ISO variant vs. invariant sensor.


----------



## heptagon (Sep 12, 2014)

rfdesigner said:


> heptagon said:
> 
> 
> > rfdesigner said:
> ...



Yes, I should have used RMS addition of the independent noise.

No, the Poisson noise is important to calculate the S/N value which considers all noise sources.


After all, this exactly explains why cameras with the same sensor size have the same SNR18% performance (in print mode) on DXO. Also it explains why the dynamic range is worse on Canon sensors compared to new Nikon/Sony sensors. Also it explains why Canon has equal or better high ISO performance.


----------



## FEBS (Sep 12, 2014)

AccipiterQ said:


> FEBS said:
> 
> 
> > AccipiterQ said:
> ...



What a joke man! 

Of course I know the 5D3 is a FF, but you mentioned that "THEY HAVEN'T MADE A SINGLE INNOVATION IN SENSOR TECHNOLOGY IN YEARS". So that's no true, look at 5D3, DPAF so there is development, but not the big megapixels as I presume you would like to see.

Very strange behavior you have. It's just like someone driving a BMW 1-series, and then says the development of the engines stayed for years on the same level as the M3 engine could only get 20 hp more during the last 8 years. So you forget all the other important things as suspension, gearbox, stability, durability, brakes, economical motor management,.. and then telling that BMW would produce bad engines as there is no new engine developed and they keep on going on the same old engine. That's what your are telling. But of course never driving a car like that (here I mean the 5D3 or 1Dx) extensively to feel what they are capable.


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 12, 2014)

EOS AE1 said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > Yes poisson noise is also present, but as the two situations I'm comparing here have the same light levels, the poissn noise is identical, so we can drop it out of the equations.
> ...



Poisson noise is implicit in a FLOW.. (the light), once that flow has ended if we wish to half/double etc the ratio between the Poisson noise and the signal level remains constant.. it's how we can measure the readout noise on sensors in electrons.


----------



## spinola (Sep 12, 2014)

HUMMMM 

D750 is a very good camera, for $ 2,3K. See http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082599-REG/nikon_d750_dslr_camera_body.html

Why pay %1,9K for a 7DII?


----------



## RickWagoner (Sep 12, 2014)

spinola said:


> HUMMMM
> 
> D750 is a very good camera, for $ 2,3K. See http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082599-REG/nikon_d750_dslr_camera_body.html
> 
> Why pay %1,9K for a 7DII?



WOW Nikon actually did built in WIFI! Ok now Cannon has to step up!


----------



## FEBS (Sep 12, 2014)

AccipiterQ said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > joejohnbear said:
> ...



Yes for sure. there is even a big improvement. I regular have the opportunity with my photo friends to test all those models. The 70D is much better then the T2i. I agree, the mp is only increased by 12%, but I even would have liked a 7D2 with 18mp, or even 16mp. It's not the mp that makes that action camera great. It's all around, the total mix, and that's only as weak as the weakest link of a chain!!! If the sensor of the 7D2 is the same as the 70D, there will be no other crop camera on the market to beat this 7D2.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 12, 2014)

spinola said:


> HUMMMM
> 
> D750 is a very good camera, for $ 2,3K. See http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082599-REG/nikon_d750_dslr_camera_body.html
> 
> Why pay %1,9K for a 7DII?



66% more FPS, more than 4 times of X-type AF points in wider pattern, especially on the edges of AF array (in APS-C inherently covers more area of the sensor), more AF points in total, 1.6x reach, presumably bigger buffer (pure speculation on this point). Ability to mount high quality L telelenses. Those two cameras are for entirely different market...


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 12, 2014)

rfdesigner said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > rfdesigner said:
> ...



Try it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

spinola said:


> HUMMMM
> D750 is a very good camera, for $ 2,3K.
> *Why pay %1,9K for a 7DII?*



To piss off the CR Forum trolls, of course.


----------



## pknight (Sep 12, 2014)

OK. While some people are apparently convinced that the sensor is the only important component of a camera, I am curious about some functionality related specs that have not been mentioned. First, it would be nice to be able to bracket more than three exposures. Also, it would be great to have a true auto-ISO, where you could dial in exposure compensation, like you can in auto-Av or auto-Tv. These seem like no-brainers, but we will see. (I can do the bracket expansion with ML on the 7D, but ML crashes my camera far too often for me to be comfortable using it. I don't think it will harm anything, but I don't need a camera that just randomly goes dead. And, of course, it will be a long time, if ever, before ML is available for a new camera body.)


----------



## iceman (Sep 12, 2014)

FEBS said:


> Yes for sure. there is even a big improvement. I regular have the opportunity with my photo friends to test all those models. The 70D is much better then the T2i. I agree, the mp is only increased by 12%,



Agree with you there, used to own a T2i. Was shooting sports more but wanted better IQ so I got the 70D. Based on specs and some reviews they 70D has only a slight or hardly noticeable improvement. After my first day shooting basketball with it, ISO 3200 and 6400 were cleaner or at least easier to clean in post. For what I shoot, I am happy and consider the 70D a lot better than the sensor on the T2i (7D).


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 12, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> ...



This is how I shoot low light on my 30D.. I stop at ISO800.. here's the implied readout noise levels from the DxO data... on the D800 looks like ISO200 is worth having but benefit rapidly drops beyond that.



D800 

DxO DR	Dyn Range	Read noise ISO Sensor noise level
13.23	9607.863904	1.705269784	100 1.705269784
12.56	6038.606714	2.713208655	200 1.356604327
11.74	3420.520118	4.789914818	400 1.197478705
10.93	1951.00262	8.397733469	800 1.049716684
10.03	1045.516417	15.67072476	1600	0.979420298
9 512 32 3200	1
8.07 268.727471	60.96883187	6400	0.952637998
7.06 133.4356174	122.7858073	12800	0.959264119
5.91 60.12945595	272.4787667	25600	1.064370182

Canon 5DIII 

DxO DR	Dyn Range	Read noise ISO Sensor noise level
10.97	2005.852769	8.168097006	100 8.168097006
10.87	1871.52681	8.75434961	200 4.377174805
10.69	1652.002323	9.9176616	400 2.4794154
10.41	1360.574274	12.04197398	800 1.505246747
9.94 982.2864582	16.67945217	1600	1.042465761
9.23 600.491494	27.28431654	3200	0.852634892
8.3 315.1729698	51.98415337	6400	0.812252396
7.48 178.5271893	91.77313587	12800	0.716977624
6.48 89.26359465	183.5462717	25600	0.716977624

Canon 30D 
` 
DxO DR	Dyn Range	Read noise ISO Sensor noise level
10.82	1807.775736	9.063071082	100 9.063071082
10.81	1795.288517	9.126109727	200 4.563054863
10.66	1618.004607	10.12605275	400 2.531513188
10.27	1234.747216	13.26911273	800 1.658639092
9.67 814.6293594	20.11221399	1600	1.257013375
8.63 396.1766383	41.35529058	3200	1.292352831


----------



## spinola (Sep 12, 2014)

Khalai said:


> spinola said:
> 
> 
> > HUMMMM
> ...



I understand your point. My comment is based on the fact that I have a 70D at home and work with a 5D3. I could not exchange a FF sensor for only 3,5FPS. The price difference is very small in the case of the D750. It's just my opinion based on my personal experience. I understand that other users have other priorities.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Five years ago Canon's product was superior to Nikons. They let Nikon catch up. If what you say is true I am not sure how that plays out as sound business strategy.
> ...



I think Canon's business strategy is sound, my comment was to joejohnbear's silly reasoning.

However;

Go back five years when you bought your 7D, how did Nikon stack up against Canon? Would you have seen the DxO number fan boys and the Nikonian trolls on this website bashing Canon's sensors?

Nikon caught up and that is why the trolls are here now. 

When I went digital I went with Canon because they were in lead substantially as far as the technology goes.


----------



## EOS AE1 (Sep 12, 2014)

rfdesigner said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > rfdesigner said:
> ...



that´s all fine, the data i mean.

but what if you only have 1024 tonal values you can boost because you underexposed so much.

from experience and not whitepapers i come to the conclusion that not underexposing by 2 stops and raising ISO instead i get the better images.

i usually shoot at a maximum of ISO 1600.

you may get a bit more noise but you also get more tonal values. 
i can clean the noise in post but when i have banding it´s hard to fix that.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 12, 2014)

spinola said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > spinola said:
> ...



Yup. The 750 and the 7D2 or 70D are two totally different cameras for different uses. It's similar to saying well why should I buy the weedwacker for $150 when I can buy the lawnmower for $200. Yeah they both cut grass, but they have very different purposes and specialties. 

If you want to shoot portraits and artwork, in this scenario the D750 is the better machine, no question. But if you want to shoot action accurately and need 60% greater reach on your glass then you grab the 7D2, no question. And that is who will buy this camera. Regular consumers who want the "high end" retail store rig will buy the 70D (no knock against it), but pro level action shooters (sports & wildlife) will gladly spend the $1800-$2000 on the 7D2 to get the significant upgrade in AF, which is absolutely critical for what they do. That is what this camera is built for. There is a huge market for that and it's self evident by simply looking at the enormous sales of the original 7D.

And by the way, pros don't upgrade their bodies every year or every other year. While we all wish it was sooner, 5 years isn't a bad business decision from Canon's perspective I imagine. After 5 years, people with a 7D are far more like to upgrade to a new model than if this Mk II had come out 2-3 years after. Just a guess


----------



## heptagon (Sep 12, 2014)

rfdesigner said:


> This is how I shoot low light on my 30D.. I stop at ISO800.. here's the implied readout noise levels from the DxO data... on the D800 looks like ISO200 is worth having but benefit rapidly drops beyond that.



Coincidentally the D810 now has native ISO64 because to improve DR and SNR.

For studio and landscape cameras the way to go is more Megapixels and lower ISOs.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

It's a small market segment, so I'm sure Canon and Sony don't care that much about it compared to their bread and butter cinema C300's and FS700's. And most "prosumers," aka film students, wedding videographers, documentary filmmakers, etc. buy Canon because of their lens lineup and their customer support center IN Hollywood, but you seem to have a lot of experience in video, so I bet we can trust you on that. 



Tugela said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > You mean the indie and low-end commercial video guys. It's just one segment of the market. Not everyone is making money off of youtube videos. That said, I wouldn't mind cool trickle down features, just saying there's already a higher end cinema market. With competitive pressure, Canon will trickle down features through firmware updates, but if there's no competitor, then why is the onus on Canon to give all their high end features for a lower price? The C300 is very popular with documentary filmmakers and film schools for a reason.
> ...


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

Have a chat with your business or marketing department then and ask what their strategy is.


Tugela said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > Look up some of Thom Hogan's articles on the approaches of different camera companies to the market. Canon is the most fiscally conservative, offering advances in features that don't cost them as much monetarily in arms races to higher megapixels, etc. Nikon loads up DR and megapixels on their D3100->3200 models and it doesn't necessarily work better at attracting consumers. People like us who are technical and get into the specs, sure, but the average camera user is interested in convenience of use more than anything else. The point and shoot market disappeared and all the camera companies are going for higher price point and shoots and MILC's now. That's probably not the way to "save" the camera industry, and they'll need something more like Apple where they use current technologies to make cameras more convenient than ever, but that's a separate tangent and long topic to cover here. Also something Hogan discusses.
> ...


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

+1

Some people like to reinvent history.



neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Five years ago Canon's product was superior to Nikons. They let Nikon catch up. If what you say is true I am not sure how that plays out as sound business strategy.
> ...


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> The good old five-year-old parroted retort, good one.
> 
> Lol, you talk about how Canon should release this tech or that tech years ago, and how their business is hurting from it, and how you're sure that's not how companies should operate, and then I'm the one commentating from the armchair? You're the one who just made an unfounded claim that Canon was doing better than Nikon five years ago (from a technology standpoint, from what I understood)! I've shot night and day with blood and sweat with BOTH camera systems from the past five years. Can you really say the same? You say that a planned product release cycle is bullshit? Go talk to any college professor in hardware development and release, I'm sure they'll tell you the same. But I suppose you're the expert.



Yes your the one in the arm chair you keep talking about. While some of the points you have are valid some are just BS which discounts your whole line of thinking.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

Average joe (college girl, old retiree, Asian dad, etc) really couldn't care about specs. They're driven to their purchases more by marketing. 


EOS AE1 said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > EOS AE1 said:
> ...


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

Yup, your opinion over Thom Hogan's. Guess who has a better track record on analyzing the economy?

The D700 sensor was ahead of Canon's on low-light. Nikon had better f/2.8 zooms and supertelephotos. I knew because I SHOT on their system, I didn't just flip the pages of their catalog. Can you say the same? Just because DXO measurebators weren't on the scene fapping away doesn't take away that Nikon was doing VERY well five years ago. Bloody history revisionist. 

And yeah, you got shut down by Neuro. You can't reword what you said, because it's all there in the thread.



takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

"Which just discounts your whole line in thinking." Yup, because argumentative points can't stand on their own, and because the character of a poster is so important (ad hominem). Also, you never directly answer when I call you out on having no relevant real-world experience with Nikon. This is the very definition of armchair expert, whereas you throw the word around without knowing its meaning.



takesome1 said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > The good old five-year-old parroted retort, good one.
> ...


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 12, 2014)

EOS AE1 said:


> that´s all fine, the data i mean.
> 
> but what if you only have 1024 tonal values you can boost because you underexposed so much.
> 
> ...



By shooting 1600 max on a canon you have more or less optimised your noise. The question is does 1600 underexposed 2 stops look the same at 6400?.. On that comparison I'd expect identical performance except the 1600 would have less blown hi-lights

The whole of this argument came about because of the comments saying "Wow! 16000 ISO".. my point is, 16000 ISO won't buy you much/anything.


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 12, 2014)

heptagon said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > This is how I shoot low light on my 30D.. I stop at ISO800.. here's the implied readout noise levels from the DxO data... on the D800 looks like ISO200 is worth having but benefit rapidly drops beyond that.
> ...



Interesting, thanks for pointing it out.. I'll go look it up, certainly stacks up with my experience.


----------



## lintoni (Sep 12, 2014)

FEBS said:


> AccipiterQ said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to disagree.
> ...


----------



## EOS AE1 (Sep 12, 2014)

rfdesigner said:


> The whole of this argument came about because of the comments saying "Wow! 16000 ISO".. my point is, 16000 ISO won't buy you much/anything.



well i can fully agree to that. 
at least for my shooting habits that´s true.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> However;
> 
> Go back five years ... Would you have seen the DxO number fan boys and the Nikonian trolls on this website bashing Canon's sensors?



Well, these forums don't go back to 2009. They launched in July, 2010. So, here's a post from about one month after CR Forums first launched...



Inst said:


> Gaaarbage.
> 
> Given this event, should Canon just throw in the damn towel? They've been floundering since 1D3, 1Ds3, and the 50D; they've had time enough and resources enough to retake superiority from Nikon.
> 
> ...



So the Nikonian trolls have been here since the beginning. However, I didn't coin the term '*DRones*' until 2013...


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> +1
> 
> Some people like to reinvent history.
> 
> ...



I had my morning laugh this morning. Looks like I will not have to go to Yahoo and read this mornings Dilbert either.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> Yup, your opinion over Thom Hogan's. Guess who has a better track record on analyzing the economy?
> 
> The D700 sensor was ahead of Canon's on low-light. Nikon had better f/2.8 zooms and supertelephotos. I knew because I SHOT on their system, I didn't just flip the pages of their catalog. Can you say the same? Just because DXO measurebators weren't on the scene fapping away doesn't take away that Nikon was doing VERY well five years ago. Bloody history revisionist.
> 
> And yeah, you got shut down by Neuro. You can't reword what you said, because it's all there in the thread.



That is laughable. Especially since Neuro commented on a comment I was making about your theories on marketing.

Go read Nikon's financial report for 2009, it was a downturn year for Nikon. I wonder why, they had such great technology at that time.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

Yup, no actual direct answer. 

Avoiding the question:

"When trying to make a case for some position or idea, we frequently encounter questions which challenge the coherency or validity of that position. When we are able to adequately answer those questions, our position becomes stronger. When we cannot answer the questions, then our position is weaker. If, however, we avoid the question altogether, then our reasoning process itself is revealed as possibly weak.

It is unfortunately common that many important questions and challenges go unanswered — but why do people do this? There are surely many reasons, but a common one may be a desire to avoid admitting that they might be wrong. They might not have a good answer, and while “I don’t know” is certainly acceptable, it may represent an unacceptable admission of at least potential error."



takesome1 said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > +1
> ...


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

It's a business move, but you're welcome to question it.

Also, everyone's sales were down. Canon was "behind" in tech because it had nothing to compete with the D700 or D3. All of their pro cameras were 1.3 crop.

http://www.bythom.com/2010predictions.htm



takesome1 said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, your opinion over Thom Hogan's. Guess who has a better track record on analyzing the economy?
> ...


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > However;
> ...



Trolls have been on the internet since the day the first chat room opened. The Trolls had far less to talk about in 2010 when it comes to Nikon vs Canon. They became real bad when the D800 was released.

By the way the thread this all started with was joejohnbear saying that Canon withholds technology because of the bad economy. He can drag the discussion through different piles of poo to color it in different ways, but no matter how you bend it the concept is still just silly.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> Yup, no actual direct answer.
> 
> Avoiding the question:
> 
> ...



What is stupid about your post, not that others of your posts are not equally stupid. The questions you are coming up with have nothing to do with the original topic we were discussing. Which is your concept of technology companies withholding technology in a down turned economy.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> It's a business move, but you're welcome to question it.
> 
> Also, everyone's sales were down. Canon was "behind" in tech because it had nothing to compete with the D700 or D3. All of their pro cameras were 1.3 crop.
> 
> ...



Canon had a 2.9% increase from previous year of 2008. Nikon far worse. 

Quote from 2009 financial;
Within the consumer business unit, sales volumes of such new products as the competitively priced EOS
Digital Rebel T1i (EOS 500D) and advanced-amateur model EOS 7D digital SLR cameras recorded solid
growth.

Doesn't sound bad to me.


----------



## ritholtz (Sep 12, 2014)

Canon will release next rebel with this same sensor. Am I going to see big improvement over t3i. I guess I should wait for next quarter bumper results from Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



You suggested we wouldn't see trolls bashing Canon sensors here a few years ago. I showed the opposite. Now you come back with, well they were here, but they had less to talk about. 

Never admit you are wrong when you can make excuses instead. Great motto to live by, good job. :


----------



## tcmatthews (Sep 12, 2014)

EOS AE1 said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> ...



Personally I do not think that it is ever a good idea to underexpose by 2 stops on any camera. Unless you using it for artistic effect. So is it at that point underexposing? 

I generally prefer to under on my Sony by at max 1.5 stops. 2 stops is pushing it a bit far.

It seems any time a discussion like this we fail to realize that Canon and Sony sensors are flat out different. The techniques for maximizing their performance are different. As is everyone's artistic expression. Canon ETTR, Sony/Nikon ETTL, but regardless of what is best approach for the camera EXPOSE FOR THE SCENE. 

Last year I took a picture in the woods with my Nex6 in which I intentionally underexposed by 2 stops. Then in Lightroom adjusted exposure slider up 1 stop, highlights up 1 stop, shadows down 1 stop, and drove the black slider nearly all the way to black. The image was a little over saturated so I had to reduce saturation. It produced the image I intended to take and I have done very similar shots with my 60D.

There are no hard rules but In general as you go up in ISO the closer you need to be to proper exposure to the scene. The more DR in the scene the closer to proper exposure you need to be if you want the DR in the final picture.

The more DR the sensor has the more adjustment options exist in post at low ISO. So for the Sony sensors there are cases where using lower ISO and underexposing to keep shutter speed up is appropriate. The DR can be used to adjust in post.

Max ISO in general for me is the following. 
Nex6/EOS M ISO 1600 (800 no noise reduction)
60D ISO 800(400 no noise reduction)
6D ISO 3200


----------



## tcmatthews (Sep 12, 2014)

In my experience the ISO performance of the EOS M is better than the 60D. I expect the ISO performance of the 7D II to be better than the 70D. 

We currently have an incomplete list of specs. So as usual I will withhold judgment until the camera is officially announced. It looks like it will be a larger camera than I would like but if it gets me usable ISO 3200 in a crop camera I might be tempted. 

What I consider usable is completely subjective. Until then I will wait for the images.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Never admit you are wrong when you can make excuses instead. Great motto to live by, good job. :



Pull text out of context, bash the person when you did not bother to understand the context of the comments for no reason and hit them hard. If it makes you feel better about yourself good for you. 

Start another thread Complain about the "trolls" and coin words for them, as if that makes you superior somehow. Then after years you turn in to one yourself.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

This is the quote that I'm referring to:

"The only camera maker that hasn't clearly succumbed to the "follow the shouts" form of design so far is Canon. Sure, they've tested some waters with a smaller/lighter DSLR and an even smaller mirrorless camera that devolve from their DSLRs, but those are natural progressions given the "real" needs in the market. Some might say "Canon's behind, Sony is going to eat their lunch." Evidence so far suggests that Canon still has a far bigger plate than Sony has and Sony's plate isn't empty yet, so that would just be more hyperbole for the moment. 

Canon has the most to lose by getting decisions wrong and following the user claim of the moment, so I don't expect them to do what Sony has and basically throw a huge number of different camera designs on the market to see which one sticks. Canon also has other businesses that can help stabilize their overall business as the camera group tries to figure out the proper future course. So they can risk being a bit conservative in trying to figure out the changing camera market."

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/trends-fore-and-aft.html

"Every indication is that Canon regards cameras as a fully mature market and is managing it as such."
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/february-2014-nikon-news/camera-company-financials.html

Sure, it's a bit of a tangent, but it's true, you're a catalog reader, not a real-life Nikon shooter like Thom who's predicted the market time and time again, INCLUDING this 7D Mk II announcement (focus is on focus, not sensor). 



takesome1 said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, no actual direct answer.
> ...


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

See my post with a link to Thom Hogan's article.



takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> We've now had several pages where the debate boiled down to a debate about semantics. Semantics about a point that was about something that really didn't have anything to do with the 7D II specs that have been confirmed.



Compared to the hundreds of pages wasted on DRoning DRivel, 'several pages' is nothing. :


----------



## crashpc (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> We've now had several pages where the debate boiled down to a debate about semantics. Semantics about a point that was about something that really didn't have anything to do with the 7D II specs that have been confirmed.
> 
> Are you guys having fun yet?



Okay, you was a tad faster. From previous discussion it seems that he who bought Nikon camera knows more about market. :-D DOH I´m pretty lost here, but what did I expect....


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 12, 2014)

Just another great day on Canonrumers. ;D

You guys are a hoot!


----------



## Khalai (Sep 12, 2014)

This thread is hilarious. It's better than Duracell rabbit, because it's going and going ang going and going... (repeat ad libitum/nauseam)


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

It's a problem, sure, but if you shoot landscape, it's not an issue if you know how to properly exposure blend. That's what fine art landscape photographers have been doing for over a decade now. High DR just makes things more convenient.



dilbert said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> It's only DRoning DRivel to you (and a handful of others here who seem to have a seething hate for the subject.) It's not an unreasonable subject to discuss, especially given the (now very long standing) state of Canon sensor technology, and when you guys jump in with your name calling and belittling...



Ahhhh, yes. That explains ZigJakeyDean posting Diet Coke box DRivel in a thread on Canon LCD color tones. Or Mikael's barbecues and awnings in thread after thread...we all recall how tolerant you were of those posts. 

Maybe one day I, too, will find DReligion, kneel before the Holy Exmor, and Mikael can retroactively become my Prophet with Dean as his disciple.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> It's a problem, sure, but if you shoot landscape, it's not an issue if you know how to properly exposure blend.



I'm not much of a landscape photog, but in my limited experience it's surprising how many parts of the nature move if you look at them @20mp 100% crop. Of course pasting another exposure of sky over a landscape is easy and there are good programs to do exposure blending for you. But if low- and high dr parts get intertwined like sun through leaves, it gets tricky - or am I mistaken?


----------



## unfocused (Sep 12, 2014)

Khalai said:


> This thread is hilarious. It's better than Duracell rabbit, because it's going and going ang going and going... (repeat ad libitum/nauseam)





AcutancePhotography said:


> Just another great day on Canonrumers. ;D
> 
> You guys are a hoot!



This has gone through so many levels, I can't even tell who is arguing what anymore. Maybe the teams need to adopt a name and start wearing shirts. One thing is for sure, that "typing at the speed of thought" thing isn't working out too well. There is a lot more typing than thought going on.

What was this thread about? Oh yeah, Canon is introducing a new 7D.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

You are correct, in these scenarios, higher DR is important, but you still need to exposure blend in that case too with the single exposure. Otherwise you get the HDR effect on your solid edges. Make no mistake, I loved the higher DR on Nikon's cameras since the D700 and newer. I'm just saying that there are tons of talented landscape photographers who shoot scenes and get by fine using bracketing and reverse grad ND / grad ND filters. There are no doubt scenarios that would be helped by a single exposure with a non-gradual transition, i.e. light through moving leaves as you said, but it's not stopping them from creating great art otherwise. Most people don't know how to properly exposure blend though and just depend on sliders.



Marsu42 said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > It's a problem, sure, but if you shoot landscape, it's not an issue if you know how to properly exposure blend.
> ...


----------



## unfocused (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> It's a problem, sure, but if you shoot landscape, it's not an issue if you know how to properly exposure blend. That's what fine art landscape photographers have been doing for over a decade now. High DR just makes things more convenient.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is it time to start one of these yet? Try to keep it to one line. It looks better.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 12, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is hilarious. It's better than Duracell rabbit, because it's going and going ang going and going... (repeat ad libitum/nauseam)
> ...



;D. ;D. ;D

Honestly, I'm cancelling my Sky TV subscription; I just don't need it for entertainment anymore.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> > LOL! You would get *fired* for doing a studio product shot and delivering a file that underexposed ;D
> 
> 
> 
> Not if I used a D800.



Go ahead and put together a portfolio of product shots exposed like that and see who hires you :



> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Yes it is. If you blow your exposures that bad Exmor might be able to save you.
> ...



I already pointed out that he could have shot +2 or +3 with recovery and produced a far better image. You're grasping at a thin little line on the histogram generated by the pixels in the white label which are gray in his underexposure and which have no detail to speak of in any case, and claiming its ETTR. I actually laughed out loud when I read your histogram analysis. It's no wonder you are having trouble with noise and banding.

Nearly the entire image is bunched up in the left 3rd of the histogram. +2 would have been vastly better. I would imagine that +3 with highlight recovery would have worked as well if the shadow was that important or going to be pushed later.

He clearly shot to expose/emphasis banding. Which is fine. We all get it. Canon sensors have deep shadow noise and banding, Exmor do not. It matters...a bit...sometimes. But it's flat out dishonest for you to pretend that this was 'proof' that normal Canon exposures which aren't even pushed will have banding. There isn't even banding visible in that shot until you bump exposure in ACR!



> How about you explain to me what you think ETTR is, or how it works?



How about I'm not paid to teach you and I already provided a Google link.



> For the edification of all of us here? Also, please explain how these exposures are not properly ETTRed?



I can sum that up with 3 words: *Your other right.* ;D


----------



## win nut (Sep 12, 2014)

I am waiting see how the digic 6 adc performs with the 20.2. What I want to know is did they keep the joystick???


----------



## Larry (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> The words are censored, nbd. I used it for effect, but if it's not your cup of tea, I understand.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for the civil response, ...I was not sure whether or not to expect one.

This thread is providing fun for many, with plenty of fee-wheeling give and take, and is quite informative as well, if wheat can be separated from chaff .

I am smart enough to know that the exchanges are well above my tech understanding, and so have not attempted to make any contribution re. the main subject. And I note that no one seems to think my (admittedly off-topic) comments on the level of discourse worthy of support. Still, since I have a bit of time, I will call you on a few points, in the nit-picking spirit of this thread:

1. "words are censored" - Not all, even by your definition, ...check your post #64.

2. Effective "censorship" - An image of a female torso with the chest area covered by a black panel is censored, ...you cannot see or know with certainty what is covered. The (horrible, dangerous!)subject is effectively censored.

The letter "S" with accompanying ellipsis, if the reader is grammatically erudite to any degree, quite effectively and clearly reveals, rather than "hides" the subject, ...you are knowingly throwing you-know-what in the game :.
Camouflage cloth with an image of what is beneath is faux, no? "S..." will do as a synonym (rather than obfuscation) for " a certain mushy, odorous substance which emanates from a posterior body orifice". I. e., "S..." by any other name smells the same.

Reading the other posts in your threads should indicate that such usage is not the norm here. I find no other examples of the S and F usage, contrasting with your 19 usages in 13 posts (by my count, in your profile post file).

3. use for "emphasis" - Yes, many(most?) of us (myself included!) use these terms occasionally for emphasis, ...but it would seem that we have somewhat different standards re. the appropriate places for such usage. Also, frequent, rather than infrequent use deprives them of their novel or "impact" emphasis effect. And continuous frequent use tends to make such use habitual(!) so that use can easily be inadvertent rather than deliberate.

My intent is to suggest that this forum will not be enhanced if the bar is lowered so that what is now an anomaly should become the norm. The inter-net has numerous examples which to me illustrate that there are indeed more and less "classy" places for idea exchange, ...I am simply voting that we preserve the prevailing status of this one.

Thanks for all your tech input, ...very interesting.

Apologies if the tone of these comments strikes you as pedantic, ...sometimes the only way to get something said, is to say it! 

I have had my say. To avoid possible digression into hostility, I will not respond further on this subject.

Your comments (or those of others) welcome.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

Lol, you really should try this fun service when posting replies here: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ettr



dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > > LOL! You would get *fired* for doing a studio product shot and delivering a file that underexposed ;D
> ...


----------



## Steve (Sep 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ahhhh, yes. That explains ZigJakeyDean posting Diet Coke box DRivel in a thread on Canon LCD color tones.



Have you actually downloaded those RAW files and manipulated them? I did. The NEF is hilariously better than the CR2. You can see the difference in 5 seconds with a simple exposure comp adjustment. The NEF holds together like a champ and the CR2 just falls apart into noise and banding. Is it fixable with good NR? Sure, probably. But it is a fact that you just don't have to do that sort of work with the Sony sensor. Wailing and gnashing your teeth against all the people pointing out this fact doesn't change that its a fact - the Exmor is a better sensor.

And just to head you off here, I have all Canon gear and I'm not going to switch. I like Canon's stuff and it performs well for what I like to shoot. Would I like to have that Sony sensor in my Canon camera body though? Absolutely. No question. I don't even understand why it pisses you off so much that Canon fans want this kind of quality in Canon sensors and are bummed they don't have it. As far as I can tell, the trolls in these threads are you and dtaylor plugging your ears, shouting "Market Share! Market Share!" over and over again and making snarky comments about DRones in every other thread on this forum whether anyone has mentioned The Company That Shall Not Be Named or not. Its far more tiresome than the people who want Canon sensors to improve.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

It's called the internet. I like to blow off steam on some people who I suspect have no shooting experience other than reading forum posts. It amazes me how many people who have never shot at a high level (professional or amateur high level) with Nikon for an extended amount of time have such bigoted opinions on Canon vs. Nikon. My language was meant to troll the trolls, but I know it just ends up feeding them anyways. Some people do really deserve the language, such as the poster who claimed that he shot sports with a T2i and supertelephotos, and then proceeded to delete his post claiming he had such equipment. Just a kid in a basement, and not exactly one I have much sympathy for.

If you've noticed, I've toned down my language in recent posts, but I'm not going to delete what I said in the past. The language has led to some unnecessary animosity with some great posters, and I apologize for that and like to clarify any misunderstandings caused by it, but some people genuinely deserve to get smacked up a little when they try to spread blatantly false or misleading information because they have some kind of vendetta going on. 



Larry said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > The words are censored, nbd. I used it for effect, but if it's not your cup of tea, I understand.
> ...


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

There's a reason Canon doesn't use Sony sensors. It's bad for having a competitive edge, like Apple oursourcing their LCD parts to Samsung, which resulted in Samsung turning around and becoming their largest competitor using the same tech. Canon's a little behind on their R&D, or they're with-holding it for some reason we're not completely aware of, and I think frustrations from people on both sides - those who are tired of this, and those who are tired of the vocalness of the first group - are what's causing the animosity. Some statements from both sides, name-calling or those threatening to jump ship and saying controversial statements that Canon is basically going to die / isn't competitive anymore are what feeds the fire.



Steve said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhhh, yes. That explains ZigJakeyDean posting Diet Coke box DRivel in a thread on Canon LCD color tones.
> ...


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> I just mentioned that Canon took a fiscally conservative approach to releasing their products. Nothing wrong with that. The other guy kept calling it "bull." So...he started it. ;D
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I will give you 50% accuracy on that statement. I did say your post was "bull". Is Canon a bit conservative, sure. Do they withhold upgrades and technology waiting on the market to improve as you claim they do? I have to call "bull" on that part of it.


----------



## Alino (Sep 12, 2014)

A nice feature could be to couple the intervalometer to their evasive 'Electronic manual focus" to make stacking. As I made a lot of butterflies eggs, it could be nice for me.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> You are trying to redirect the debate here. Your trying to undermine my credibility by making claims I don't know what I'm talking about. I repeatedly back up my claims with actual evidence.



You don't know how to interpret the 'evidence' because either a) you don't know what you are talking about here, or b) you are so stubborn and so bent on proving what you've already decided to be true that you will defend any and every silly thing.

It's like when you posted a bunch of links to HDR images on 500px as 'evidence' of Exmor shadow recovery in landscapes. Multiple people told you they were rather obvious HDRs. Instead of having some humility about it you went off on a long (surprise!) rant about how irrelevant details proved...just PROVED...they were not HDR. "When you see EXIF info that means it's NEVER HDR." So sure of yourself. So positive. Right up until I pointed out some of the tools which retain EXIF info :

As for your credibility, it's long gone. You are a DRoner who has never spent any time with an Exmor camera even though it would be cheap for you to add one and even though supposedly it's the holy grail of IQ. In other threads Exmor owners have said essentially the same thing I have. Shadows are better, that's sometimes useful, would be nice if Canon changed their ADC arrangement...but it's not the dramatic difference in real life as you imagine it to be. But even though they OWN the cameras their words mean nothing to you. 

Listening to you talk about what Exmor means is like listening to a lecture by a teenage virgin on what sex with a porn star is like. When you've actually touched one...an Exmor that is...let us know.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

win nut said:


> What I want to know is did they keep the joystick???



The 7DII will have the multicontroller (aka joystick).


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> How about a dedicated PDAF system with 65 cross-type spread all across the frame? Or the 150K-pixel RGB+IR metering sensor? Oh, wait...no one cares about _that_ sensor. :



Baby 1DX down to the iTR AF for $1,800. Yeah...who would call that innovation? You can shoot your lens cap at 10 fps but if you can't push the images +5 stops without noise then it's all for not, isn't it? ;D


----------



## xps (Sep 12, 2014)

1800$ confirmed?


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

And you would have what insider knowledge to debate that point? What ties to hardware manufacture and distribution?


takesome1 said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > I just mentioned that Canon took a fiscally conservative approach to releasing their products. Nothing wrong with that. The other guy kept calling it "bull." So...he started it. ;D
> ...


----------



## x-vision (Sep 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Do you have real world, optimally produced and processed shots with RAW files and production notes yet?



Let me summarize your stance for everyone to understand.

So, you don't accept that Exmor sensors are superior than Canon sensors based on: 

you don't accept formal test results from DxO and the likes
you dismiss any real-world example that is given to you
you think that it's fair to compare differently processed files

In short, if we ignore the formal tests and the real-works samples - and then process files differently - we can show that Exmor is no better than Canon.
That's where you stand, basically. 

And to top it all, you are doing all this spin-doctoring on Canon's behalf totally for free. 

Wow. I haven't seen such devotion and dedication to a brand. 
They have a special name for guys like you - Canon bitches fanboys, right ?


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> And you would have what insider knowledge to debate that point? What ties to hardware manufacture and distribution?
> 
> 
> takesome1 said:
> ...



Since you made the claim, who is the insider you know at Canon that told you this?
You have third parties that may mention it, but who at Canon?


----------



## Steve (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> There's a reason Canon doesn't use Sony sensors. It's bad for having a competitive edge, like Apple oursourcing their LCD parts to Samsung, which resulted in Samsung turning around and becoming their largest competitor using the same tech. Canon's a little behind on their R&D, or they're with-holding it for some reason we're not completely aware of, and I think frustrations from people on both sides - those who are tired of this, and those who are tired of the vocalness of the first group - are what's causing the animosity. Some statements from both sides, name-calling or those threatening to jump ship and saying controversial statements that Canon is basically going to die / isn't competitive anymore are what feeds the fire.



I totally understand why Canon doesn't outsource sensor production to Sony. I meant more "Sony equivalent". I honestly do not care at all about the argument or taking sides on it because, as I said, Canon is doing what I want it to do for what I shoot, for the most part. I'm just getting super exasperated with a couple people here straight up denying reality. Its like watching an evolution or climate change debate.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

Alino said:


> A nice feature could be to couple the intervalometer to their evasive 'Electronic manual focus" to make stacking. As I made a lot of butterflies eggs, it could be nice for me.



One more time: Electronic MF merely allows you to use the camera menus to turn off manual focusing on the few lenses that use focus-by-wire, like the 85L and the STM lenses. The 5DIII and 1D X already have that 'feature'.


----------



## tcmatthews (Sep 12, 2014)

I am a little disappointed that this thread has dissolved into DR speculation. But not entirely surprised. 

The 70D on sensor Phase Detection auto focus is market leading. In fact it is Revolutionary. it is ahead of Sony on sensor Phase Detection by at least a generation. 

The Sony Exmor sensor as better sensor read out. They also apply some noise reduction in sensor before going to RAW file.

We do not know what dual DIGIC 6 brings to the table. Likely lower readout noise and improved DR. So how about we put a cork in it until we get real comparison. Or at least go to one of the plethora of other threads that already discuss this.

If Canon puts in cleaner A/D converters there goes the Exmor advantage.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 12, 2014)

x-vision said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have real world, optimally produced and processed shots with RAW files and production notes yet?
> ...



Strewth.

So all the thousands highly regarded professionals using Canon gear are missing a trick are they ?

Here's a link to a good pal of mine who shoots with 1Ds III and 5DIII, and he must be regarded as one of the most successful photographers of modern times, now contracted to work solely for one of the worlds largest automobile companies. 

http://www.davidburgess.eu

If what you say is right do you honestly believe that people like this would still be using Canon.


----------



## xps (Sep 12, 2014)

Steve said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > There's a reason Canon doesn't use Sony sensors. It's bad for having a competitive edge, like Apple oursourcing their LCD parts to Samsung, which resulted in Samsung turning around and becoming their largest competitor using the same tech. Canon's a little behind on their R&D, or they're with-holding it for some reason we're not completely aware of, and I think frustrations from people on both sides - those who are tired of this, and those who are tired of the vocalness of the first group - are what's causing the animosity. Some statements from both sides, name-calling or those threatening to jump ship and saying controversial statements that Canon is basically going to die / isn't competitive anymore are what feeds the fire.
> ...



You are definitively right with purchased sensors!
It is not like in computer business, where you earn enough money to build a new chip factory after some month.
On the other hand, I can understand, that some of CR´s are dissatisfied as other manufacturers do produce Cameras that are superior in specific facts and Canon does not meet this. And Canon is willed to maximise their profits, maybe to finance other developments. Why build a new factory, when we still can sell the current sensor? Or maybe it is true, that Digic 6 is not able to hande 24MP plus (heared at an Nikon workshop)?

Wait for the real announcement and see what not menioned features are insid this body.
And wait for the first real reviews on the product. THEN we can discuss, if this product meets our needs - or not.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 12, 2014)

I was using wax works to refer to canon video and jpgs. If you compare ML RAW video to the same shot using Canon internally processed video you see how waxy the video is, some combo of too much DNR, too little area sharpening with only edge sharpening, poor de-bayer, poor scaling algorithm, perhaps even some nasty gaussian blur added just to make it look worse than Cxx (although more likely digic is just poor at such things, for instance they chose to use an older Canon DV chip in the Cxx series instead of newer DIGICs, but it's is also possible that they chose poor settings that don't even get the best from DIGIC and I suppose marketing maybe could even have them blur it just a bit to protect 1DC and Cxx, although probably not).

I was also complaining about shadows at low ISO, but that was a different issue (I guess DPP does make them look a bit like wax works too).



joejohnbear said:


> I think he's talking about a wax look after pulling shadows etc, but he'll prob have a better answer than I do. I've gotten that before when trying to do something like HDR. Exposure blending takes care of it, but like I said before, it's not ideal in certain situations. I think if your exposure is spot on and DR in the scene is limited, i.e. you use flash to balance with the sky for a portrait, etc, it's not that big of a difference, at least enough for any wedding clients to notice. That said, the high detail and wide dynamic range will be great for nature that jrista shoots where DR can be challenging, and for fashion studio shots only if you have enough time to touch up. The level of detail is actually unflattering if a client has any blemishes, so my opinion is that the D810 is better for things like fashion, but not so much for wedding and family portraits, that deal where volume can be a problem and cost-prohibitive or photoshop / magazine-style touchups.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 12, 2014)

Well look at how well it worked out for Atari to sit on advanced tech.

Granted the computer world was much more dangerous than the camera world is.

But if you think back some years, Canon had the tech to make Nikon look silly and they perhaps could have all but driven them out of business. I suppose it may be just as well they didn't as then we'd never, ever, ever get anything new from now on.

And the wild video sales they had with the 5D2 are no longer there since they squandered that, sure the Cxx has some sales, but the whole sub 10k market they've kind of punted on when they could've have it beyond wrapped up and sales upon sales galore.




joejohnbear said:


> The good old five-year-old parroted retort, good one.
> 
> Lol, you talk about how Canon should release this tech or that tech years ago, and how their business is hurting from it, and how you're sure that's not how companies should operate, and then I'm the one commentating from the armchair? You're the one who just made an unfounded claim that Canon was doing better than Nikon five years ago (from a technology standpoint, from what I understood)! I've shot night and day with blood and sweat with BOTH camera systems from the past five years. Can you really say the same? You say that a planned product release cycle is bullshit? Go talk to any college professor in hardware development and release, I'm sure they'll tell you the same. But I suppose you're the expert.
> 
> ...


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

dilbert said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Since I've shot scenes like that and not had a problem: pictures or it didn't happen.
> ...



Quick and dirty screenshot comparison: http://s28.postimg.org/6t5fhmhe5/7d_dr.jpg

Crop at 50% with additional LCE in PS: http://s7.postimg.org/oli4obisr/7d_dr_2.jpg

+1 exp and +80 shadows. This equates to +2.5 exp (I matched using just the exp slider to be sure), but if you do it that way you lose the sky. 

For sky: -60 highlights which recovers the same highlight detail as -0.5 exp (again I checked with just the exp slider to be sure).

NR was L35 and C50. You can just start to pick up a bit of color splotching at 100%, and of course the 7D can be a bit 'grity' at 100%, but at 16x24" I do not believe that would ever be a problem.

I did process/print a 2 exposure blend of the same scene. But the reason was not due to noise but due to superior tonality/fine detail in the shadows. You get superior tonality/fine detail by blending on Exmor as well. I certainly would have been happy with the single frame version had I not had 2 exposures to blend.

I certainly do not see a 'problem' with Canon's highlight/shadow retention here, and this is the first generation of their 18 MP crop sensor.

Again, Exmor is better. If I ever order an A7 I'll put the time in to do a proper, side by side test. If I order a 7D2 at the same time then I can do old crop, new crop, FF, and Exmor FF. Having had the chance to test shoot Nikon and Sony Exmor bodies I know from experience Exmor will be better in shadow latitude. 

But I also know from experience that a real world test will not show the drama difference that you get when severely underexposing and/or turning off all NR. The differences are simply not worth all the words the DRoners have posted in this forum. Canon sensors can handle the majority of contrasty scenes just fine. And the difference between being forced to HDR with Canon and forced to HDR with Exmor is much smaller then the DRoners would have anyone believe.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 12, 2014)

canon1dxman said:


> D750 announced formally
> 
> http://nikonrumors.com/2014/09/12/nikon-d750-promo-product-tour-hands-on-videos.aspx/#more-80352



arggh no 4k, Nikon themselves played that too conservatively, it could've been a go to feature to steal the DSLR video market away from Canon (although in Nikon's case it is possible they simply don't have the chips to pull off 4k in a DSLR of this type; Canon definitely has the ability)

so now you know Canon marketing won't dare put 4k in even the 5D4 (if they actually were wise enough, they'd toss 4k into it, use a new sensor line and put out a 39MP 6fps (7fps if more daring) 4k compressed+processed 1080pRAW 7D2 AF beast that, combined with their lenses and name, could make everyone forget about any other brand for mid and high-end range, but it seems more and more unlikely, instead they will just sit and wait until every other last maker offers 4k and then give 4k three years later and maybe give exmor-like low ISO for the 5D5 or 5D6, maybe, I mean I hope not but)

Anyway, should it be no 4k and no-exmor-like low ISO and no more money from Canon from me for 5D4 or anything else. I'll put my money to other uses and mixes of other brands.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 12, 2014)

EOS AE1 said:


> Again you don´t seem to get it. So try it yourself.
> 
> Underexposure by two Stops to get a small noise advantage is not a good thing to do.



You are missing his point about the 'iso-less' sensor/ADC setups.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

Well I'm not neccessarily in support of it either. But lowering your price to compete and cutting each other's throats isn't a good way to do business either.


LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Well look at how well it worked out for Atari to sit on advanced tech.
> 
> Granted the computer world was much more dangerous than the camera world is.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Better data is better data.



This is the crux of the argument. Most of the time there is no difference in the quality of data between the two systems. The difference only manifests itself in specific and quite extreme circumstances. 

dtaylor's example is a good demonstration of an extreme EV range + dark coloured subjects in the under exposed area that still isn't extreme enough to cause much of a problem even for an old 7D, yet your reply is to basically say it's not under exposed enough. 

If you love under exposure get a camera with an Exmor sensor.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> DTaylor, on the other hand, seems utterly incapable of even acknowledging that there IS a meaningful difference between Canon data and Nikon or Sony data.



Do not lie about what I have said again.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



trolls post things that they know not to be true (which you have been known to do) and about things that don't concern them for the sole purpose to upset people or hurt people while they sit back and then laugh

What does that have to do with long time Canon users pointing things out that they hope Canon gets around to improving? Or pointing absurd little things like AutoISO that marketing has engineering cripple for no good reason?


----------



## Eldar (Sep 12, 2014)

Come on guys, we´re on page 40 now. Let´s have an ambition to keep it going past 50 before the end of the day. Still lots of unused off-topic arguments and insults to throw in


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 12, 2014)

I really don't understand what the fuss is about....

What we have here is someone wants some aspect of their next camera to be better than what they have now... WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE ARGUING!!!!!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 12, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> Do they withhold upgrades and technology waiting on the market to improve as you claim they do? I have to call "bull" on that part of it.



They do have the tech to make sensors that would do much better for low ISO DR. They don't seem to have the ability to make them since they won't outsource all compact sensors and move DSLR sensors onto the better fabs or pay a ton of money for new ones for DSLR sensors. So they are sort of and sort of not withholding in that sense.

Stuff like 4k they are clearly holding back. Even 1080p quality they are mucking up on anything but high end. it took a third party hack to get top quality 1080p out of even the 5D3 (with that hack is does deliver a pretty awesome 1080p though, with the hack and providing you are willing to deal with giant RAW the cam is pretty amazing for 1080p, much better than any Nikon DSLR has provided). And all the video usability features, proper AutoISO, playing games with micro focus adjust. They held back better AF from anything but 1 series for years and years. The 5D3 was the first time they relented and now the 7D2 will be the second. Back in the earlier FF days (shortly before the D700) they were asked if they plan to ever put FF in a body with speed and they said haha no why should we are kings we have no need we could but we won't hahahahaha we are kings we will sit on the mountain as is we are kings.


----------



## xps (Sep 12, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Come on guys, we´re on page 40 now. Let´s have an ambition to keep it going past 50 before the end of the day. Still lots of unused off-topic arguments and insults to throw in


 I looked at Mr. Sporgons HP and found some incredible good looking pictures. 3 pages have been written in meantime. If there are other good HPs, please tell me! Then I will look in this topic again and we will be @ page 50.
Now we know how fanatism is created ???


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe one day I, too, will find DReligion, kneel before the Holy Exmor, and Mikael can retroactively become my Prophet with Dean as his disciple.
> ...



Yeah, that's most likely true. 




jrista said:


> I know you, and unfocused, dtaylor and a number of other members here don't think it matters. Fine, that's your opinion. *Your free to have your opinion. And we won't call you names.* Not everyone agrees with you guys on that front. *To some people*, for some types of photography, it DOES matter. Not necessarily so much to the end results...but to the workload between the camera and the end result.



I don't recall saying I think it doesn't matter. It does matter, just not to everyone. In fact, it only matters to a small minority. 




jrista said:


> Is it so much to ask to just let them (the them who aren't saying Canon sucks at everything, just the them who have some legitimate complaint about Canon technology, those who would prefer to have BETTER Canon technology that serves _their _needs-that-are-different-than-yours...there are quite a few of us here) have their opinion without the name calling (i.e. DRones), at the very least? Is it too much to ask that you give others _the freedom to have their opinion_?



You have complete freedom to express your opinion. Pick any thread you want about a Canon camera, feel free to bring up Canon's lack of DR. You know what'll happen, but you're free to do it anyway. 

The thing is, when have I argued that more DR isn't beneficial in some situations? When have I stated that Canon sensors don't have less DR that SoNikon sensors? I'm far from alone there. We get it, we really do. Ok, so now that we've acknowledged it...then what? The disagreement isn't about the differences between the sensors, it's about the *significance*, the *impact*, and the *relevance* of those differences. Repeated discussion and repeated demonstration of the technical differences isn't going to convince anyone of the _importance_ of those differences. Yet...those discussions and demonstrations are still repeated...over and over...and over again. After a while, it becomes droning...droning about DR...DRoning.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 12, 2014)

What do you mean bu the lowering your price to compete comment?




joejohnbear said:


> Well I'm not neccessarily in support of it either. But lowering your price to compete and cutting each other's throats isn't a good way to do business either.
> 
> 
> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

x-vision said:


> The irony is that while certain immature individuals like you staunchly refuse to acknowledge the advantages of having more DR,



Yet another strawman :


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 12, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I really don't understand what the fuss is about....



Seems to be a love-hate relationship with Canon :-o ... I certainly have one since I bought my first film camera (eos 620) in the early 90s. Canon is smart and keeps designing their products so people shell out a lot of $$$ while still wishing for more. Plus photogs in general seem to be quick to adopt a smug, know-it-all attitude, after all you're the one having the power and pressing the BUTTON :->



Don Haines said:


> What we have here is someone wants some aspect of their next camera to be better than what they have now... WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE ARGUING!!!!!



To some extend, I can understand both sides and thus can skip reading: Until I kept using Magic Lantern's dual_iso module (nearly 15ev dynamic range on the 6d) I didn't miss anything and kept bracketing. If you don't shoot higher dr scenes or are simply are used to 10ev, it's easy to perceive others as trolls. But higher dr is big news, it means less hassle with exposure and more freedom for shooting scenes that were out of scope of photography some years ago.

To be ot: Personally, the rgb metering is the most interesting news to me - it also means better exposure = more of the dr used = less noise. Strangely, this innovation seems lost in the thread.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 12, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Better data is better data.
> ...



Someone gets it...thank you! ;D


----------



## EOS AE1 (Sep 12, 2014)

to be honest if i would meet any of you at a photography meeting i would turn around and go. 

you all show disgusting personalities and i understand that most of you choose to be anonymous.


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 12, 2014)

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm finding this highly entertaining.



So far all the manufacturers are leaving a lot of performance on the table.. Total QEs are still in the teens, (60%mono + Bayer).. readout noise could fall quite a bit further.

If canon were to jump a couple of stops of low light performance, I think a lot of people would put up with lower DR for that... certainly sports which must be a major market.

I think physics would still allow about 4 stops of improvement without having to use bigger sensors.


----------



## x-vision (Sep 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Yet another strawman :



I'm telling you, man. Your arguments are ridiculous as they are right now. 

As I said, think about what you will say about the 14-stops DR of the 5DIV.
You will have to either flop-flop on your DR stance - or you will be accused of being a Nikon troll, 
as everyone in Canon land will be excited about the new sensor.

My suggestion is that you cut your loses and flip-flop now 8).


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 12, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I really don't understand what the fuss is about....
> ...


I still don't understand the arguing.....

Take Jrista as an example..... he wants more DR and less noise in his images.... The thing is, we all do. If the 7D2 came out with 20 stops of DR and almost no noise, would anyone refuse to buy it because Canon made it too good? Of course not.... but we would expect even more from the next model out. We always want more, and if the other guy already has it, that just makes the desire stronger.... So why are people arguing? Shouldn't the reaction be "me too" and then the great debate ends?


----------



## Eldar (Sep 12, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Fully agree! As simple as that!


----------



## unfocused (Sep 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> You have almost single handily destroyed these forums with trolling. No one can actually discuss what the 7D2 is because the topic is derailed...YET AGAIN...to a stupid fight over DR and shadow latitude.





EOS AE1 said:


> to be honest if i would meet any of you at a photography meeting i would turn around and go.
> 
> you all show disgusting personalities and i understand that most of you choose to be anonymous.



I absolutely agree with this. 

This forum is being held hostage by a tiny, tiny subset of people who are fixated on insignificant differences in one single component of a camera. In addition several of these DR Trolls seem to be plagued with what an editor of mine use to call "diarrhea of the typewriter." Instead of making their point and moving on, they choose to bludgeon everyone over the head with the same drive-by talking points over and over and over again.

Whenever anyone tries to discuss anything else, they hijack the thread and turn it into a debate over their one and only topic. 

Virtually everyone else on this forum has been willing to concede that there are differences in sensors and that Sony branded sensors have strengths. So what? Honestly, I don't even know what these DRONES want. How many times and on how many different threads must we be subjected to the same drivel day after day? 

Just for the record, these endless debates have convinced me of two things:

1) I no longer believe J. Rista knows anything. I used to think he had a pretty good grasp of technical issues and would even specifically ask him about certain issues. Now, I just think he's full of himself and doubt the accuracy of anything he used to claim knowledge of.

2) Canon must make pretty damn good cameras if the only thing wrong with them is that they show some shadow banding when you point the lens directly into the sun and try to lift shadows of some leaves that are about 30 stops underexposed. 

I doubt if either of these things are what they intended, but that's the conclusion I've come to.

(BTW, I am not anonymous. I have always included my website address and you can find my bio there if you care to.)


----------



## Gorku (Sep 12, 2014)

:


----------



## unfocused (Sep 12, 2014)

x-vision said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Virtually everyone else on this forum has been willing to concede that there are differences in sensors and that Sony branded sensors have strengths.
> ...



Well, that makes me smile a little. A bit more humor and tolerance of different opinions would be welcome.


----------



## tcmatthews (Sep 12, 2014)

I really do not know why they are arguing about DR stuff in a Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed section. There was no mention of DR in these specs. I admit I am not really interested in DR arguments in a 7D II rumor thread. Unless DR is specifically in the rumored spec. 

DR is important but is this the right place for this discussion.

But the Internet has its trolls. Every rumor site has its trolls. If you go to a Sony site you see a ton of complaints about not enough lens for A mount. All the the rumors are about E mount. The flash system sucks. Followed by I am dumping all my gear if they do not release X lens and going to Canon. Some then someone pipes up and states why not go to Nikon. This is generally followed by a bunch of former Nikon customer with various maintenance nightmares.


----------



## x-vision (Sep 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> I'm not trolling the forum with 1,000 word posts claiming Exmor is dramatically better and Canon users are missing out. *Burden of proof was always on you.*



Here's an offer for you: 
Why don't you just conceded that Exmor has 2-stops of DR advantage over Canon.
And also that this is helpful and meaningful for a lot of users. 

You do that and we stop arguing on the spot. 

That's the thing: I doubt that you will do that, since you can't admit that Canon is worse. 
Instead, you are going to keep trolling insisting that there's hardly any difference. 

And yet again: think about what you are going to say when a Canon sensor has 14-stops of DR - same as the Exmors.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > 1) I no longer believe J. Rista knows anything. I used to think he had a pretty good grasp of technical issues and would even specifically ask him about certain issues. Now, I just think he's full of himself and doubt the accuracy of anything he used to claim knowledge of.
> ...



Perhaps a bit too harsh. Maybe it comes from typing at the speed of thought.  

I'm just perplexed as to why this suddenly has become so all-important. And, yes, I do think it has undermined your credibility with me – not that that should matter a bit to anyone.

But, do answer me this. A few months ago, you wrote a number of long explanations as to why a new 7DII sensor could not possibly match a full frame sensor in high ISO performance. In fact, as I recall, the basic premise was that we were pretty much at the limits of physics when it comes to ISO performance and that the best that could be expected was maybe a quarter to a half of a stop or so improvement.

So, knowing that, why does there seem to be such bitter disappointment that Canon has not exceeded the limits of physics? 

I've got to be honest. I've looked closely at comparisons of Canon, Nikon and Sony performance on any number of review sites. My conclusion, which has been confirmed by the reviewers in their assessments, is that the higher megapixel sensors used by Nikon and Sony have much more serious noise issues as ISO increases. When you look at the comparison shots posted on these different sites, the story is always the same, whether its full frame or APS-C -- the greater the pixel density, the greater the noise.

In fact, Sony themselves are confirming that, since they significantly ratcheted down their pixel density to get better high ISO performance. And, even Nikon has now released their new camera with fewer pixels to improve their ISO performance. 

So, what has caused you to now believe Sony's sensors are magical and Canon's are an utter failure?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista,

You might be able to type 100wpm, but I wish you would learn the difference between you're and your, you're always typing your when you mean you're.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> I didn't ask you for names, I asked you if you had special insight in telling me that Canon isn't using a textbook manufacturing strategy. Some way to back up your naysaying. NDA's are a big deal, you don't ****** over your friends to appease internet trolls.



I think it is your version of textbook manufacturing strategy that we were discussing. 
Are you claiming to have insider insight in to Canon's strategy and how they handled the release of their technology? If so I think you can lean back in your armchair and continue to type.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 12, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> There was no mention of DR in these specs. I admit I am not really interested in DR arguments in a 7D II rumor thread. Unless DR is specifically in the rumored spec.



I agree that the general arguments about dr have been exchanged and if there's no new information there's little use of repeating them here. However, as in a lot of situations in life, the most important things are left unsaid 

It's certainly interesting what specs Canon *didn't* (actively?) leak. And as dr (i.e. noise level) is one of the biggest differences vs. Nikon/Sony, it's strange there's no word about it. Just like the new 11pt af system on in the 6d specs back then, only for reviews to discover that it's the legacy 5d2 system and there's not a single full cross pt . 

What skeletons has Canon hidden in the closet that don't show up on the spec list? Imho this discussion belongs in a 7d2 rumor thread.



dtaylor said:


> Exmor does not have 14 stops. That's physically impossible given a linear ADC and 14-bit depth. We will not see 14 stops without improvements in noise beyond Exmor plus 16-bit ADCs.



In my capacity as self-proclaimed ML ambassador: Their dual_iso module outputs 16bit dng raw files because 14bit wouldn't do it.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

Planned obsolescence is taught in freshman engineering classes. Even Jrista disagreed with you. College dropout troll, I'm done feeding you.


takesome1 said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't ask you for names, I asked you if you had special insight in telling me that Canon isn't using a textbook manufacturing strategy. Some way to back up your naysaying. NDA's are a big deal, you don't ****** over your friends to appease internet trolls.
> ...


----------



## Admin US West (Sep 12, 2014)

Whenever a new model is announced, its always the same. People get in arguments and start calling names.

The moderators get tired of issuing warnings and issuing bans. 

Its OK if someone believes something different. Stop criticizing other people's posts, and name calling will get a warning or a ban.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Sep 12, 2014)

FEBS said:


> AccipiterQ said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



Hmmmm maybe the 70D I played around with wasn't very good then. I have some spots that I go to regularly, and took sample shots, and comparing to the T2i I didn't see a lick of difference between them in image quality, nor in iso noise quality.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 13, 2014)

x-vision said:


> Here's an offer for you:
> Why don't you just conceded that Exmor has 2-stops of DR advantage over Canon.



Because it doesn't have 2 more stops of total DR. Unless, of course, you're comparing the oldest 18 MP generation to the latest 24 MP Exmor generation. Same generation? The 70D is behind Exmor by 0.1 stop of total DR. I believe the 5D3 is behind by about 1 stop of total DR.

Depending on the bodies being compared, you will find pairs where there's 2, or even more, stops of additional shadow latitude. That is to say if you push the shadows the Canon is showing excessive noise or banding at +2 or +3 and the Sony can go to +4/+5.

But DR and latitude are two separate things.



> And also that this is helpful and meaningful for a lot of users.



It would be more accurate to say that Exmor shadow latitude is helpful in terms of work load, and produces observably better shadow detail in print, in some cases. The work load envelope is wider then the print difference envelope. Put another way, with a little extra work there's often (not always) no difference in the final print.



> And yet again: think about what you are going to say when a Canon sensor has 14-stops of DR - same as the Exmors.



Exmor does not have 14 stops. That's physically impossible given a linear ADC and 14-bit depth. We will not see 14 stops without improvements in noise beyond Exmor plus 16-bit ADCs.

If Canon changed their ADCs and achieved Exmor level shadow noise/latitude tomorrow I would be happy with the improvement. Doesn't mean I believe it's a massive difference that negatively impacts my work today.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 13, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Exmor does not have 14 stops. That's physically impossible given a linear ADC and 14-bit depth. We will not see 14 stops without improvements in noise beyond Exmor plus 16-bit ADCs.
> ...



Dual ISO is like having a non-linear ADC. So yeah, you can easily break the 14-bit barrier and achieve more then 14 stops.

I've always wondered why Canon hasn't redesigned/redefined HTP to be dual ISO. From what I've seen resolution losses are minimal and DR gain, both in terms of total DR and shadow latitude, is quite impressive. It seems like it would be a relatively easy firmware change for them that would result in glowing feature reviews.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 13, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> It seems like it would be a relatively easy firmware change for them that would result in glowing feature reviews.



You still have to post-process the files, and given the speed ML's current cr2hdr tool works this cannot be done in camera.

Combined with other (minor) drawbacks of the dual_iso method, this obviously is too hackish for good ol' Canon and they would also admit that they think such a workaround is necessary at all. Better give the users a nice, magic htp option that few people really understand but suggest you can boost your dynamic range with no drawbacks


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 13, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



ML's DualISO is a great feature and I'm a huge proponent of it, but the version that currently exists really isn't good enough to be released to users as a commercial product. If they were to utilize the concept along with the dual pixel nature of the newer sensors, however, then I think they could have a winner on their hands. If they could do this with dual pixels then you should get all the gains, but essentially none of the downsides and since no high order interpolation schemes would be necessary in camera processing should be minimal.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I still don't understand the arguing.....
> 
> Take Jrista as an example..... he wants more DR and less noise in his images.... The thing is, we all do. If the 7D2 came out with 20 stops of DR and almost no noise, would anyone refuse to buy it because Canon made it too good? Of course not.... but we would expect even more from the next model out. We always want more, and if the other guy already has it, that just makes the desire stronger.... So why are people arguing? Shouldn't the reaction be "me too" and then the great debate ends?



Perhaps. But there are other forces at work. 

First off, jrista is making very similar arguments, in some cases identical, to certain rather aggressive and egregiously behaved predecessors. His motivation is different, but in using the same arguments, and in some cases the same images, he sounds like them...and draws the expected response. Second, he (and his predecessors) aren't simply trying to inform or educate, they are seeking agreement. It's not enough if someone acknowledges the issue about which they are dissatisfied, particularly when the acknowledgment is accompanied by a statement that the particular person isn't bothered by that issue. 

It goes like this: Someone is unhappy with the low ISO IQ of his Canon sensor, fine with us. He tells us, fine with us. Those who _are_ happy with the IQ of their Canon sensors – at low and high ISOs – don't agree that we should all rise up en masse and lambaste Canon for their poor low ISO IQ, and _that's_ not fine with him. So he tries harder to convince us. We remain unconvinced (again, not about the issue itself, but about it's importance to us). He becomes frustrated, and so do we. Etc. 

It happens over other features...4K video, etc., but DR is a well-known hot button issue here, particularly because that one issue is used by some to draw the conclusion that Canon sensors 'suck'. That's pretty clearly as untenable a position as the one stating that Canon sensors have the same low ISO DR as SoNikon. The difference is that while almost no one argues the latter, plenty of people claim that Canon's sensors deliver poor/sub-par/unacceptable IQ. 

Wanting better is fine. Telling people you want better is fine. Telling people that what they have isn't good, that even though they _think_ it's working fine for them, they're wrong...that's never going to end well. But like Don Quixote, some people are just going to ride from thread to thread, tilting at that windmill.


----------



## jrista (Sep 13, 2014)

Oh, and...for those who REALLY want to be heard, use this:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/form_display/sup_by_email


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2014)

You were sounding quite reasonable and logical for a moment, and then this:



jrista said:


> The latter claim, about poor/sub-par/unacceptable IQ, however, _isn't_ untennable. It can actually be demonstrated.



How can it actually be demonstrated that current Canon sensors have poor IQ, sub-par IQ, or unacceptable IQ? All of those are *value judgements*. Who are you to determine what constitutes 'poor' or 'unacceptable' to anyone but yourself? You didn't state 'have lower DR than' or 'have more shadow noise under certain conditions than', did you? Those can be demonstrated. No, you stated 'unacceptable IQ' can be demonstrated. Unacceptable to whom? Unacceptable for what use? Not your call. Not DxO's call, but at least they're not foolish enough to make such an unfounded and indefensible claim. 

On the bright side, Mikael would be very proud of you right now. Good job!


----------



## JRPhotos (Sep 13, 2014)

SD or Compact flash?


----------



## that1guyy (Sep 13, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista,
> 
> You might be able to type 100wpm, but I wish you would learn the difference between you're and your, you're always typing your when you mean you're.



LOL + 100000000

That also goes for everyone who does the same.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 13, 2014)

Maybe an announcement Sunday night or Monday of a new 7D II will start a new thread and this thread will get a well deserved death


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 13, 2014)

jrista said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Hmm... Explains a lot. ;D


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 13, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > that1guyy said:
> ...



Has the thread officially degraded in to a grammar thread. If so I need to start running my posts through spell and grammar check in word. :


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 13, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Not really, but when miscommunication, misunderstandings, and hyper over analysis is all mixed in with the emotions people show here it helps if those that do actually have English as a first language and wish to be understood were a bit better at basic communication. I have my faults too, as well as many spelling and punctuation errors, and I am often misunderstood because of it. If we all try a little harder to write what we actually mean in a way that is grammatically correct and less prone to misinterpretation the temperature might lower somewhat, which I think would be a good thing.

P.S. I think that should be "into"!


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 13, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Yes "into" is correct.
I guess I will have to go to the computer to post, this IPAD doesn't have a grammar check.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 13, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Yes, in this day and age there is still a reasonable correlation between quantity and quality, but emotions and enthusiasm tend to run away with us, they inflate the quantity thus lowering the quality.

The funny thing is so much of this repeated antagonism could be so easily "proven" one way or another. I am a results guy, I am not overly interested in the tech of the gear though it can be interesting as a diversion, I am interested in the physics of photography, perspective and how that interacts with focal length and format size, I am also interested in system capabilities, like the RT flash system and what it can do with what camera etc as well as AF customization, for instance, but most importantly I want images, I am a sight driven animal and most photographers are.

Were I a mod I'd lay down the law, I'd ban (as an example) "DR" posts from Jrista and Dave Taylor until they posted their own comparison RAW files for everybody to see. If Dave wants us to believe there is little difference via his step wedge then post them, if Jon thinks there is >2 stops of DR then post the RAW files and prove it. If Dave wants to point out that is not "DR" but "editing latitude" then let him post the post processing steps he took to those linked RAW files, easy!

I have posted hundreds of images and several videos here, almost all of them have been illustrative images that reinforce my point. We can, and will, argue forever but it will never illustrate our belief like a couple of RAW files will.

In brief, we could cut through 95% of the bullsh!t here if we had a three post and prove it moratorium, you can say what you like for three posts, after that prove it with RAW images illustrative images and any post steps.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 13, 2014)

jrista said:


> It's also clear that there are different definitions of DR. Your definition of DR is incongruent with everyone else's definition of DR.



No there is not, and no I am not. And I have *fully documented the correct definition* in the past with enough citations to fulfill college level writing requirements. That you refused to read the links and books and learn is not my problem.

Worse for you, the only two samples provided so far, Fred Miranda's and Dean's, are congruent with my definition and in-congruent with an "engineering" or sensel definition. In both FM's and Dean's photos the total DR is very nearly the same. There are not blocked up shadows on the Canon where there are details on the Nikon. It is the shadow latitude that is different because as you push the Canon shadows noise becomes an issue.

To be clear, Exmor usually does have a bit more total DR as well. But not 2 stops as predicted by looking at the SNR of a sensel. You are not looking at a sensel or a film grain, but a 2D matrix of many sensels or film grains.



> It's more than just editing latitude...We can prove this with a little math.



Yet not with photographs, the only thing that matters.

You know what you call math that can't predict real world observations? Falsified.



> Actually, the theoretical limit in a 14-bit ADC is 14 stops of DR.



In a simple, perfect, theoretical world perhaps. This is the real world.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 13, 2014)

jrista said:


> Nice. Way to fan the fire, man. You just can't stop. You even managed to throw in another equivalency with Mikael in there. Very nice. There is a reason these threads drag on forever...and a reason they get so nasty. You.



That is rich coming from you, especially when directed at Neuro :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2014)

jrista said:


> Poor and sub-par IQ can both be defined and quantified in a reasonable manner.



*poor*
po͝or,pôr
adjective
2. worse than is usual, expected, or desirable; of a low or inferior standard or quality

What is 'usual'? Expected or desirable by whom? Still a value judgement. Who sets the standard for image quality?

You're correct that people can come here to vent, but they cannot expect everyone to agree with their position. I suspect you'll find a few people here who disagree with your belief that Canon sensors produce images of a low or inferior quality. Maybe more than a few? :

Rent a D810, shoot and post all the RAW images you want, I bet you find that the Exmor images have more DR and less noise in the shadows, especially when those shadows are pushed. But we know that already. Will you prove it actually matters to others? That's the real issue. We already know it doesn't seem to matter to Canon, as far as can be judged by their sensors over the past several years.

There's more to image quality than the pixels that make up the sensor. That's an argument that I frequently use to refute those who claim that Canon must improve their sensors. I have to say, you summed up that argument very eloquently...



jrista said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > tell me Jrista, image quality, what is it more than the sensor and the measurements for example DXO does?
> ...






But...thanks for doing something that might actually make a difference:



jrista said:


> Oh, and...for those who REALLY want to be heard, use this:
> http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/form_display/sup_by_email



I'd honestly encourage everyone who feels the way that you do about Canon's 'poor IQ' click on that link (or find the relevant one for their own location) and tell Canon. 

Another option is to complain here: http://forums.usa.canon.com

Unlike here, Canon employees actually participate and moderate the boards.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 13, 2014)

jrista said:


> When I actually started planning a rental next weekend of a D810...the guy who originally demanded I prove my claims with actual data then turned around and pleaded that I simply not bother.



Where was that again? Must be your imagination since 'the guy' has been begging you to rent a D810 and do real world testing since long before this particular DRone thread.

Honest question here: why do you feel the need to twist words and misrepresent?



> I think Dean's raws were quite good...I think they were properly exposed and demonstrated the issues well. They weren't extreme in any way, not like some of Mikael's "examples"...but they still demonstrated the issues well. Even those were dismissed.



They were not 'dismissed.' But they are not like 99.999% of real world shots in exposure or processing.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 13, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, in this day and age there is still a reasonable correlation between quantity and quality, but emotions and enthusiasm tend to run away with us, they inflate the quantity thus lowering the quality.
> ...



Most of the time it wouldn't matter what hard evidence you present to the person you are debating with. That person usually has their mind made up. There are those like me that have 40K and over 100 CPS points worth of gear in their closet, they have a level of pride of ownership and you will not convince them their gear isn't the best. Their are those that have a little gear and wouldn't admit they didn't buy the best gear. There are the guys that think if they do it a certain way everyone else should because that is the best way, you see this in the RAP vs JPEG debates for instance. Then there are the guys that believe they know everything and you can never win an argument with them. When a debate starts out with an insult very seldom does either one win.

I read the debates on equipment and take anyones findings with a grain of salt. I know individuals on this forum that started with the 7D, while they used it they would boast about how good it is and saw no reason for the 5D II. Later they owned one and now 5D III's or 1D X's and they talk the same way about those bodies as they did when they owned the 7D.

I am result oriented. I like to know the specs so I can get an idea of results. If I am making a decision of whether Nikon is better than Canon I am going to rent those bodies and compare before I make a decision. Nikon vs Canon decision is like a Car or House purchase. Once you commit you are somewhat stuck. After six years digital I am getting ready to upgrade or swap out my landscape gear. When I do I will rent a Nikon body and Canon body and compare. I will know for myself the differences in DR and other areas. First hand experience trumps all the bs we read on the forums and that is what a person should have once they commit.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> That's an argument that I frequently use to refute those who claim that Canon must improve their sensors.



You are right, Canon sensors are great. 20 years from now they can still be using the same sensor and I bet they will be making hundreds if not thousands of dollars.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 13, 2014)

Maybe photos will help explain terminology.

This is the same (or similar as we shall see) total DR: http://s9.postimg.org/utzoq40rz/same_dr.png

This is what less total DR would look like if there was a large difference in total DR: http://s10.postimg.org/d004zl1nd/less_dr.png

And this is similar total DR, but with less shadow latitude because one has color/banding noise that the other does not: http://s14.postimg.org/d39sl03w1/less_latitude.png

I say "similar total DR" because there is clipping in the upper left corner of the Canon image pushed. This is a total DR difference. It's that 1 stop difference that IR measures, though we have to push the shadows to realize it's even there in this case.

(Note: these are SMALL screenshots for illustration only. So please, no one flip out over some artifact of size and start screaming that the Nikon RAW file is really better or the Canon RAW file is really worse. These tiny screenshots have diagonal banding that's not in the RAW files for example.)


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 13, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Maybe photos will help explain terminology.
> 
> This is the same (or similar as we shall see) total DR: http://s9.postimg.org/utzoq40rz/same_dr.png
> 
> ...



While these may show what we are looking for, the examples would never prove anything without knowing the full level of control that each shot had. There lies the problem when posting files to convince someone that one body is better than the other. You can use your experiences to show someone what results you have and it may help them and they may believe what you tell them. You will seldom convince someone in a debate as they want firm hard proof, and even when they get it they may not be convinced.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 13, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> While these may show what we are looking for, the examples would never prove anything without knowing the full level of control that each shot had.



*That was a post to illustrate what total DR means and what shadow latitude means.* That's all. *Not a comparison* of bodies (I used Dean's shots for convenience). So if you looked up photographic dynamic range and shadow latitude in a textbook on photography you might see photos just like that. An illustration of the meaning of words.

I did this because there is severe misunderstanding by certain people in this thread regarding the meaning of these two terms. When you push shadows and see roughly the same detail but more noise that is not a difference in dynamic range but in shadow latitude. If it was a DR difference there wouldn't be any detail in one, but blocked/clipped blacks.

That's all


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 13, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > While these may show what we are looking for, the examples would never prove anything without knowing the full level of control that each shot had.
> ...



Yes I know they were to illustrate. The point I was making is that even if RAW files were given to someone to prove a point you couldn't make the point to the majority of the folks on this forum. (unless they agreed already)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2014)

jrista said:


> I think it's sad that people like me are forced to look elsewhere to satisfy their needs. Seems that's the case though. Just don't expect us to go quietly...we'll kick and scratch and scream until Canon finally delivers on the TTSNBS front, because we love Canon.



I agree, it would be great if Canon would please everyone. But that's a tall order – some want more DR, some want 4K video, some what other stuff. Canon cares about what people want...but mainly insofar as that helps them make a profit. 

At least there's an elsewhere to look. You've talked about renting a D810, but honestly I'd rent an a7R with adapter and see if you run into issues with Sony's RAW compression. If not, that's likely a better way to go given your lens investment. I've said I'd buy a D8x0 if landscapes were my main interest, they're not...but if I wanted to try Exmor, I'd go the Sony route mainly for the TS-E 24mm that I have and the TS-E 17mm that's next on my list.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 13, 2014)

You have under exposed for this scene. Pic 0 histogram shows this, pic 2 shows that you have too much highlight detail after bringing in down 100. 

Did you bracket for such a scene of difficult EV range ? If you had a 2/3 or 1 stop over exp you would be able to work the data much better.

At least you are trying with examples. Don't be frightened to go a little to the right, learn to judge when the LCD 'blinkies' are just joking. If you are working from the rear LCD picture set your picture style to 'neutral' and contrast '0' when shooting a scene like this so you will have a better visual of what the raw will able to cope with. Don't be afraid to bracket.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 13, 2014)

dilbert said:


> I did bracket it. At +1 EV the highlights are unrecoverable.



Usually you can recover ~1ev from the raw files, so imho your bracketing spacing is too small and only will create problems when assembling more shots than necessary. 



dilbert said:


> The snow is *really* bright and the shadows in the tree quite dark.



To be on topic concerning the 7d2: Rejoice, in such scenes, _no sensor dynamic range upgrade will be enough_. Snow is very tough, a good choice is to bracket with a very large spacing (like 3ev) and then do not hdr tone mapping, but exposure fusion in postprocessing as the scene consists of very dark and very bright. To minimize wasted exposures, do exposure correction to get the correct brackets.

Where higher dynamic range of 14-15ev does help a lot though is in standard bright daylight to get shadow detail w/o blowing the sky. You can use Magic Lantern's raw histogram to show you exactly how much dr the scene has.


----------



## x-vision (Sep 13, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> I did this because there is severe misunderstanding by certain people in this thread regarding the meaning of these two terms.



Canon is using 14-bit RAW files. So, the range between the min and max values will be 14 EVs. 

In a high contrast scene, you are likely going to clip both highlights and shadows.
Thus, you will have RAW values a ranging from 0 to 16,384 - which the histogram will show as 14-stops of DR. 

The thing is, even though you've captured light intensities ranging between 0 and 16,384 - which is 14-stops of DR (technically) - you are not taking into consideration the noise. 

You can't ignore noise, though, as it actually limits DR. 
As per Imatest, which you are using as a reference, DR _is closely related to noise: high noise implies low dynamic range_.

So, you are claiming that Canon sensor have 14 stops of DR - but that's only if you ignore the noise. 
Without accounting for the noise, any camera that uses 14-bit RAWs will technically have 14-stops of DR. 
But when you consider the noise as well, the real DR will be less. 

The engineering definition of DR does account for noise - and so does DxO.

I summary, this is the mistake that you are making: you are ignoring the noise. 
Think this through and you will see that you can't do that.

Here's a good article with the theory and some good illustrations (it's from a professor in physics): 
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 13, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > I did bracket it. At +1 EV the highlights are unrecoverable.
> ...



This is the point. You have to know when to let white be white. 

Let's say that had been shot in exactly the same way on a D800. Probably about 85% of the scene is in heavy shadow opposed to the tiny amount of direct sun reflecting snow. Dilbert does exactly the same thing and lifts the majority of the scene. It's Exmor so he retains more detail and less noise. He's happy.

_However_, the majority of his picture will have been produced from under severely exposed data. When compared with someone using a superior technique / process, his image will be inferior even if that someone is using old tech such as 20D, or D70 or whatever.


----------



## dufflover (Sep 13, 2014)

I still find it laughable though that in the end, it really really, really, does seem like people are all too happy for Canon to not get their DR up to where the competition is show things like changes in designs as a way to address it.
I don't think anyone would be so accommodating if say, CPU speeds of desktops/laptops and mobiles were like this. After all, a 5 year old computer can do stuff just fine too


----------



## Khalai (Sep 13, 2014)

dufflover said:


> I still find it laughable though that in the end, it really really, really, does seem like people are all too happy for Canon to not get their DR up to where the competition is show things like changes in designs as a way to address it.
> I don't think anyone would be so accommodating if say, CPU speeds of desktops/laptops and mobiles were like this. After all, a 5 year old computer can do stuff just fine too



My PC is 4 years old and still ticking good. LR5 and PS6 runs like a charm and starts up under 5s  I bought myself two Intel SSDs however


----------



## xps (Sep 13, 2014)

More pictures leaked:

http://thenewcamera.com/tag/canon-7d-mark-ii/

Text cited from this site:
_More Images of the upcoming 7D Mark II camera leaked, the design is similar as its predecessor, canon 7D Mark II will feature a newly developed Dual Pixel AF CMOS sensor of 20.2MP and A new 65-point AF. *All points cross type* for more details click her_


----------



## xps (Sep 13, 2014)

What do you think of the design of the Cam?

Looks cleaned up & simplified

+: The button on the mode wheel

I hope they did not change the top menue (as the items are changed (e.g. Iso & flash +/-)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2014)

Headline:

*Canon Announces 7D Mark II with Massive Dynamic Range*


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 13, 2014)

xps said:


> What do you think of the design of the Cam?



ergonomics is something canon is really perfect in (in my opinion).

i have some things i complain about but the design... nothing comes close.


----------



## tayassu (Sep 13, 2014)

It is a great body design, just like the 5DIII. I wonder what that switch around the joystick does and why there are direction marks on the wheel... But otherwise, it is just great!


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 13, 2014)

The top LCD is evidently from a camera that comes with 2 cards of different types. The mode dial is almost the same - looks like they baked together the autogreen-mode and the CA-mode. The left row of buttons on the back seem to have a slight change in their design, and the lower left front corner of the camera also seems more rounded.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2014)

tayassu said:


> I wonder what that switch around the joystick does



Not sure, but I can tell you what I think/hope it is...a switch to toggle through AF point selection modes (auto, zone, single, spot, expansion). Currently that requires too many button presses, IMO.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2014)

tayassu said:


> why there are direction marks on the wheel...



I'd guess those are part of silent controls for video shooting (change aperture, etc., without clicking the main dial).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> tayassu said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder what that switch around the joystick does
> ...



I agree, that is a pain.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not sure, but I can tell you what I think/hope it is...a switch to toggle through AF point selection modes (auto, zone, single, spot, expansion). Currently that requires too many button presses, IMO.



If Magic Lantern should ever make it to the 7d2, that's what you can add for yourself with ML as the Canon DryOS hooks for set-this-and-that-af and react-to-this-and-that key are well known. As my models don't have a joystick, I never bothered but added functions to the cursor keys.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 13, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure, but I can tell you what I think/hope it is...a switch to toggle through AF point selection modes (auto, zone, single, spot, expansion). Currently that requires too many button presses, IMO.
> ...



I wasn't aware that ML allows you to add functions, is this something anyone can do, or do you have to go into the software and then compile your own version?

I have downloaded ML a few times, but never actually installed it.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 13, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I wasn't aware that ML allows you to add functions, is this something anyone can do, or do you have to go into the software and then compile your own version?



That's open source for you. There are two options: a) add your own module, but you need to program in C and spend some time getting to know how ML and Canon DryOS works; b) add some joe-sixpack easy script with the ML api. The latter is currently wip, look at the ML site for the status.

In each case it's not done between coffee breaks I'm afraid to say. But it's worth it because at least I am by now really able to customize control my camera (mainly buttons and exposure with auto_iso). ML is the real reason I stayed with Canon when I had the opportunity to switch back when I didn't have that many equipment.

If you cannot do it yourself: 1. Try ML for all the functions it has out of the box; 2. if you miss something add a feature request to their forum. Customizing the af with the joystick certainly sounds like a suggestion other 7d/5dx owners might pick up.


----------



## Quest for Light (Sep 13, 2014)

Will maybe buy one for my 600mm f4.
Only Canon lens i still have. 

For all other kind of shooting i switched to Nikons D800E.


----------



## JRPhotos (Sep 13, 2014)

SD or Compact flash?


----------



## Quest for Light (Sep 13, 2014)

JRPhotos said:


> SD or Compact flash?




Maybe read the specs on the frontpage?


----------



## JRPhotos (Sep 13, 2014)

What's the benefit of using CF and SD in the same camera?


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 13, 2014)

JRPhotos said:


> What's the benefit of using CF and SD in the same camera?



* users can keep their legacy sd cards when upgrading from a xxxd/xxd camera
* sd cards are very handy as many mobiles/laptops have built-in readers != cf
* less space used in the camera body than 2xcf


----------



## Waka (Sep 13, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> JRPhotos said:
> 
> 
> > What's the benefit of using CF and SD in the same camera?
> ...



Could we use an SD wifi card to get round the lack of wifi?

W.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 13, 2014)

Waka said:


> Could we use an SD wifi card to get round the lack of wifi?



Here's the answer :-> ... http://lmgtfy.com/?q=eye-fi+compatibility


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 13, 2014)

JRPhotos said:


> What's the benefit of using CF and SD in the same camera?



none. Camera body is more than fat enough to house dual CF slot. 

It just causes hits to shooting speed due to a slow SD card slot in many settings (eg. RAW to CF, JPG to SD). 
Mixed CF/SD slots are likely to cause similar issues as on 5D III. 
SD is only UHS I, not UHS II (which is implemented on Fuji X-T1 for example).


----------



## WarrenZ (Sep 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications - Why Canon, Why? This is it?*

As an owner of the 7D, the specs just doesn't seem to make me want to buy this as soon as it comes out. The way I look at it, this camera represents the top of the crop line for Canon for then next 4 years --- 2018 -2019. It has no 4k, no RAW 1080p, no wifi and no sd uhs-ii. Now don't get me wrong, Canon makes solid products and I know the 7D Mark II will be a solid product in terms of performance and reliability, but Canon is just playing this way too safe. They are heading to fall behind the competition.

Tethered shooting is very nice and Canon had the opportunity to cut the cord with this, but no such luck, no WIFI -- wild ..I guess they still want to sell 800 WIFI add-ons which is completely bonkers to purchase. Would be nice to have some 4k in this body and maybe Im pushing it a bit, but at a minimum throw in RAW 1080p, the magic lantern guys are whipping up Magic with RAW video, does canon do anything to integrate that no! just 1080p60 with the same washed out codec is a waste of time. I am 100% team canon but man, they don't even have a high MP body, another one clocking in at 20MP.

Coming out with this camera with SD UHS-I is the clearest indicator that canon will never adopt uhs-ii until 2019 -- sorry canon 5D MarkIV guys, this is a big sign of disappointment to come. I will remain with Canon for stills, but they offer zero for video. Since video is a non event, the new focusing system as awesome as it is will not be used by me since I wont use video Long story short, I held out for years hoping the world for the 7D2, but canon played it WAY timid. I will just go full frame with a 6D. Canon, please stop stunting you products to protect your expensive Cinema Line by churning up tired features for the bottom end. 1080p60!!!!, wow how awesome...signing off.


----------



## that1guyy (Sep 14, 2014)

WarrenZ said:


> As an owner of the 7D, the specs just doesn't seem to make you want to buy this as soon as it comes out. The way I look at it, this camera represents the top of the crop line for Canon for then next 4 years --- 2018 -2019. It has no 4k, no RAW 1080p, no wifi and no sd uhs-ii. Now don't get me wrong, Canon makes solid products and I know the 7D Mark II will be a solid product in terms of performance and reliability, but Canon is just playing this way too safe. They are heading to fall behind the competition.
> 
> Tethered shooting is very nice and Canon had the opportunity to cut the cord with this, but no such luck, no WIFI -- wild ..I guess they still want to sell 800 WIFI add-ons which is completely bonkers to purchase. Would be nice to have some 4k in this body and maybe Im pushing it a bit, but at a minimum throw in RAW 1080p, the magic lantern guys are whipping up Magic with RAW video, does canon do anything to integrate that no! just 1080p60 with the same washed out codec is a waste of time. I am 100% team canon but man, they don't even have a high MP body, another one clocking in at 20MP.
> 
> Coming out with this camera with SD UHS-I is the clearest indicator that canon will never adopt uhs-ii until 2019 -- sorry canon 5D MarkIV guys, this is a big sign of disappointment to come. I will remain with Canon for stills, but they offer zero for video. Since video is a non event, the new focusing system as awesome as it is will not be used by me since I wont use video Long story short, I held out for years hoping the world for the 7D2, but canon played it WAY timid. I will just go full frame with a 6D. Canon, please stop stunting you products to protect your expensive Cinema Line by churning up tired features for the bottom end. 1080p60!!!!, wow how awesome...signing off.



Great first post. Wholeheartedly agree.

And now a particular someone will come and tell us how about how Canon is #1 in sales and don't need to innovate. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications - Why Canon, Why? This is it?*



WarrenZ said:


> Tethered shooting is very nice and Canon had the opportunity to cut the cord with this, but no such luck, no WIFI -- wild ..I guess they still want to sell 800 WIFI add-ons which is completely bonkers to purchase.



If all you want is tethered shooting, just buy an EyeFi card. That's what they're for. No need for Canon's stupidly expensive WiFi module.


----------



## e_honda (Sep 14, 2014)

WarrenZ said:


> As an owner of the 7D, the specs just doesn't seem to make you want to buy this as soon as it comes out.



As a former 7D owner (moved to 5DM3), I agree. It's nice and all, but this would've been considered a good incremental improvement if it came out 24-36 months ago. It's just a disappointment considering its now become a 5 year gap. 

I pretty much saw it coming when the 70D came out that the 7D II, if it was to come out, would end up using the same sensor. Kind of getting used to these underwhelming improvements from Canon. 

I hope it's higher ISO performance is at least a decent improvement. Otherwise I don't see much incentive for a current 7D owner to "upgrade" to this new one.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 14, 2014)

jrista said:


> The 5D IV is now the real milestone...that's the one to watch. If Canon misses on the sensor IQ front for the 5D IV.........



I don't agree, the 1Ds was a groundbreaking camera, as were the 1Ds MkII and 1Ds MkIII. I can easily see Canon putting it all into a 1Ds MkIV/1DXs, then let that trickle down to the 5D MkIV.

Given their sensor output up until now I see the real reason for the 1 series 1DX "amalgamation" was Canon's inability to make that mythical >35MP, they couldn't make a 1Ds MkIV two years ago, who knows if they can now. I certainly know there is a heavy built up demand from 1Ds MkIII users, myself included, to upgrade our equipment, personally I am more interested in a 1DX MkII (22MP >10fps) than most 1Ds MkIII users who want >35MP and 6 or so fps.

But I believe the truth is most long term 1Ds MkIII users are more interested in the upgrade for business reasons than pure IQ issues, sure more whatever will be nice, but most of us have made good enough livings with what we have and our output is not limited by IQ.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications - Why Canon, Why? This is it?*



Lee Jay said:


> WarrenZ said:
> 
> 
> > Tethered shooting is very nice and Canon had the opportunity to cut the cord with this, but no such luck, no WIFI -- wild ..I guess they still want to sell 800 WIFI add-ons which is completely bonkers to purchase.
> ...



Speaking as a regular tethered shooter who owns and uses WFT's and EyeFi cards, as well as long USB cables and even longer Ethernet cables, I have to say I would never buy a camera that doesn't have a WFT.

There is no comparison between using an EyeFi card and a WFT, the WFT is leagues ahead.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications - Why Canon, Why? This is it?*



WarrenZ said:


> It has no 4k, no RAW 1080p, no wifi and no sd uhs-ii.



Never mind 4k, but still using the ancient sd standard is really embarrassing. Basically that means that deny accepting that Magic Lantern raw video has found a important place in the Canon world and generates a lot of good publicity and sales for Canon. But raw video is useless unless the interface is fast enough. Let's at least hope it supports *full* uhs-speed and not something like 20mb/s on the 6d :-o

Btw welcome to the forum


----------



## bardamu (Sep 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications - Why Canon, Why? This is it?*



WarrenZ said:


> Now don't get me wrong, Canon makes solid products and I know the 7D Mark II will be a solid product in terms of performance and reliability, but Canon is just playing this way too safe.



"Solid" but "way too safe". Excellent choice of words, you really nailed it.

I would also have liked to see Canon be a bit more adventurous with this release. Throw in something surprising - 1.5 crop factor, 24MP (or maybe even 16??), new sensor tech, ?hybrid viewfinder... Having said that, for my purposes (and those of many other people) this could be a very fine camera. Will just have to weigh up my options. I could get a (second) 70D + an excellent lens instead at current prices.

Perceptions could change upon the release of the actual product, and the first reviews, or course. Tomorrow!?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 14, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



We have so much choice available to us now in the camera world there is never a reason to sit around and wait for anything. Your particular list of wants is the easiest to encompass and has the most realistic options available. Don't think for a second your perfect camera is going to come from anywhere, there will always be features from other manufacturers you decide you want, when Canon do come out with a next generation sensor then EVF's from others will be much better, their sensors will be onto another generation too etc etc. 

Get what you need to take the images you want or need to take now, we might be dead tomorrow.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 14, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn't aware that ML allows you to add functions, is this something anyone can do, or do you have to go into the software and then compile your own version?
> ...



Thanks. When you get to my age, and see the sand running out of the clock quicker and quicker, it is necessary to prioritize the remaining things you want to get completed. I'd like to spend time learning the programming of ML, but that's low on my priorities. 

Then, I'd probably have to recompile and debug each new magic lantern release.

I like to repair things, and last Christmas, I bought a old commercial embroidery sewing machine. That turned out to take me three months to eventually go thru ever part of it, and lots of $$ to fix up the supposedly minor issues. Then, I had to learn how to create my own embroidery designs because my daughter wanted me to make some promotional caps, jackets, shirts, etc.

Now, with the snows not far away, my pipes busted for my well, trees got blown down on our horse shelter, and another storage shed was ruined, so its one thing after another. In between rebuilding, I've a photo book to do, and next week, photos for a local horse event. I can't even imagine taking on ML


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 14, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Thanks. When you get to my age, and see the sand running out of the clock quicker and quicker, it is necessary to prioritize the remaining things you want to get completed. I'd like to spend time learning the programming of ML, but that's low on my priorities.



Yes, I figured as much  but still wanted to give you the gist of it, after all other people might be considering the same things.

As for simply *using* ML (the raw histogram and focus peaking are "worth it" alone, never mind dual_iso and all more advanced features) it's a piece of cake and done in one hour even w/o previous knowledge. Usability is also easy, it's just another menu. And if you've got ideas for improvement, writing a feature request in the ML forum also is exactly like writing a post on CR.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 14, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks. When you get to my age, and see the sand running out of the clock quicker and quicker, it is necessary to prioritize the remaining things you want to get completed. I'd like to spend time learning the programming of ML, but that's low on my priorities.
> ...



I've no problem with the idea of installing ML, I just never seem to actually need the features. They are nice, but I get along reasonably well. 

I'm going out to do some building now


----------



## Renzokuken (Sep 14, 2014)

jrista said:


> Your free to do what you want. I also don't doubt the sensor will get a new part number. Concurrently, I don't expect there to be any significant differences, just like the 18mp sensors. I think the downstream parts, the DIGIC 6 processors, have the potential to improve high ISO noise performance. By how much I don't know. It seems to do fairly well on the PowerShots that used it, but they never had really high ISO. Sure, we'll have to wait and see on that front.
> 
> As far as any key sensor technology changes, if there are any, I suspect it's primarily DPAF. Canon did file for another patent after the 70D, which described a DPAF sensitivity improvement. Maybe the 7D II sensor gets DPAF pixels right out to the edges of the frame, and are able to still focus despite vignetting. That would improve the video features...but fundamentally, it's still the same sensor.
> 
> ...



*Quote for truth.*

I've been following Camera/Imaging news on sites like PetaPixel, DPreview, Photozone and various other site for years. We all know Canon has the technology and a whole library of patents but they are holding all of it back because they want to milk as much profit as they can while their own technology still sells. It's a brilliant business decision, but from the consumer point of view this is downright disgusting.

I hold the same sentiment as you Jrista
I want Canon to improve on it's sensors. I want real innovation. I want them to go beyond faster FPS. I want better DR, I want lesser banding and noise at low ISO. They can improve all that but YET they chose to milk the old cow as much as they can.

I am a Canon fanboy. But I'm in college and unlike you I've not invested 30~40 grands on Canon lenses.
I like Canon, I prefer Canon over many other camera brands. (if they continue to do this for the next decade, I will definitely jump to other brands, albeit reluctantly. I mean just look at how much detailed can be recovered from D800's shadows vs that of the 5D3)
But like you, I'm highly disappointed.

And to the rest of you:
Yes, Still Image Quality has improved leaps and bounds since the first digital 35mm camera.
Yes. Still Image Quality is Good Enough for daily uses be it for Web or for Prints
Yes. Don't blame the camera for lousy shots. 
Yes. Become a better photographer by practicing more.

But why stop there? An improved sensor will magnified and amplify your efforts. A better sensor = Real progress, both on the technological and Imaging front.

Milking the old cow for as much as you can for as long as possible is one of the downside of this capitalism driven world. I guess there's nothing we can really do other than rant about it here.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 14, 2014)

that1guyy said:


> And now a particular someone will come and tell us how about how Canon is #1 in sales and don't need to innovate. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.



What's _pathetic_ is the inflated sense of entitlement some of you lot have - "how dare Canon not make me _my perfect camera_..." 

It's infantile - Canon isn't in the business of keeping _you_ happy.

But - as a typical target for the 7D Mk II - it looks like they might've made _my_ perfect camera. Must suck to be you, huh?


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications - Why Canon, Why? This is it?*



WarrenZ said:


> As an owner of the 7D, the specs just doesn't seem to make you *me* want to buy this as soon as it comes out.



I didn't get the memo telling me that you'd been elected to speak for all potential 7D Mk II owners...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 14, 2014)

dufflover said:


> I still find it laughable though that in the end, it really really, really, does seem like people are all too happy for Canon to not get their DR up to where the competition is



Which assumes, of course, that - unlike an old, out-of-date, underpowered PC - this supposed lack of DR _actually_ stops us from getting the results we want.

Which it doesn't...

Canon's priority is DR at the top of the histogram (where it performs very well), _and that suits me just fine_.

Let me know when a Nikony sensor can do better than this from this, and you might have a point...


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 14, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> What's _pathetic_ is the inflated sense of entitlement some of you lot have - "how dare Canon not make me _my perfect camera_..."
> It's infantile - Canon isn't in the business of keeping _you_ happy.



Well, if Canon is not in the business of keeping US happ ... representing pretty much a cross-section of their best, most loyal and longstanding clients who typically have shelled out anywhere from a couple 1000 bucks to a couple 10.000 on Canon products ... THEN Canon has no business. AS far as I am concerned.

And YES, we are fully ENTITLED to demand better products from Canon ... as we are entitled towards any other supplier of gear who fails to deliver products that are not as good as as they could be and that are not at least as good (!) in every which way as competitor's products and "technical state of the art" is. 

We are even more entitled to demand this from the self-proclaimed global leader in imaging technology who has claimed on numerous occasions to bring us nothing less than "the future of photography".


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 14, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > What's _pathetic_ is the inflated sense of entitlement some of you lot have - "how dare Canon not make me _my perfect camera_..."
> ...



Tell that to the many thousands of pros back in the '80's when they swapped from FD to EF mounts. Canon will do what it believes is in the best interests of its shareholders in the mid to long term, coincidentally they very often know better than us what we actually need.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 14, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Keith_Reeder said:
> ...



The switch from FD to EF in 1987 was clearly for the better. Not only for Canon shareholders but for any photographer willing to buy their new products and enjoy the advantages of autofocus and alls sorts of beenfits associated with electron communication between lens and camera ... in the best implementation on the entire market. Yes, Canon could also have kept muddling on ... like Nikon did with their long obsolete F-mount and mechanical aprture coupling, but that was and is a very sub-optimal scenario for their clients and one of the reasons why many of us chose and choose Canon over Nikon and other screwdriver-AF companies. 

Also, those clients who did not see the benefits of AF for their work had no problem to just hold on to their FD lenses and cameras. After all, those were analogue SLRs and not DSLRs were you need to upgrade to get improvements in image quality. Mechanical Film SLRs were little more than film holders with a shutter and viewfinder in them and progress between mechanical model generations was fairly limited ... real progress was only achieved once that lens mount was changed and electrified.

Even I - being a tough critic of Canon and certainly no fanboy - applaud them for the foresight that went into the EF mount. It has held up during the major changeover from analogue film cameras to digital DSLRs and is only now approaching the end of its lifecycle, as we soon will switch-over to native mirrorless lenses with shorter flange distance. The transitions will not be as painful, because this time round it is easy to privide simple extension tube adapters to keep the EF-glass working for as long as we are willing to accept the inconveniences of such an adpater solution.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 14, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Keith_Reeder said:
> ...



I know one local pro that switched to Nikon when they did that. He hates Canon with a passion because of that switch.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 14, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...


+1
Canon knew that the FD mount was dead. The world was going digital and they designed a new lens mount that was capable of surviving well into the future. Watch what happens when Canon goes mirrorless in it's high end bodies.... you will end up with the exact same mount....


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 14, 2014)

_"The switch from FD to EF in 1987 was clearly for the better."_


Of course the switch to EF was the right decision, it didn't help "US" with thousands of dollars worth of gear though. Also you both seem to have missed my point, which was, Canon will do what they believe is best and give us the cameras we actually need, rather than profess to wanting, and they have been proven to get it right enough of the time to make the sales they do.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 14, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Canon will do what it believes is in the best interests of its shareholders in the mid to long term, coincidentally they very often know better than us what we actually need.



Having moved to Canon after many years with Nikon I think there is a great deal of truth this statement


----------



## unfocused (Sep 14, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Canon will do what it believes is in the best interests of its shareholders in the mid to long term, coincidentally they very often know better than us what we actually need.
> ...



True. 

Except it is not coincidental. You can be certain that Canon spends millions of dollars analyzing the market, determining what customers want and will buy (with an emphasis on what they actually will buy rather than what a half dozen disgruntled people claim in gear forums). 

They clearly knew what customers wanted when they released the 5DIII and the 6D, despite similar complaining on this forum. 

Despite the whining we are being treated to now, I am pretty certain that the 7DII will be bought by a great many people who will be very happy with the specifications. 

There is this silly myth that the interests of the shareholders are inevitably in conflict with the interests of the customers, but that's just goofy. The shareholders are not well-served unless customers want to buy a company's products. The customers are not well-served if the company cannot make a profit.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 14, 2014)

jrista said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's priority is DR at the top of the histogram (where it performs very well), _and that suits me just fine_.
> ...



Is this what they call "field day" in English :-> ?


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 14, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Keith_Reeder said:
> ...



'Having a field day', yes, except everyone with the exception of jrista would have interpreted Keith Reeder's statement as 'photographic latitude at the top end of the dynamic range', and he is absolutely right. Look at his examples:



Keith_Reeder said:


> dufflover said:
> 
> 
> > I still find it laughable though that in the end, it really really, really, does seem like people are all too happy for Canon to not get their DR up to where the competition is
> ...



If you want to maximise the latitude from the Canon sensor you must establish how far you can push the 'over exposure', and it is often quite a long way.

If you go back to dilbert's example, in much of the picture the sensor was recording virtually no information. Try and lift this and surprise surprise, you are going to get a poor result.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 14, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> _"The switch from FD to EF in 1987 was clearly for the better."_
> 
> 
> Of course the switch to EF was the right decision, it didn't help "US" with thousands of dollars worth of gear though. Also you both seem to have missed my point, which was, Canon will do what they believe is best and give us the cameras we actually need, rather than profess to wanting, and they have been proven to get it right enough of the time to make the sales they do.



The question would be couldn't they have done the same thing and somehow preserved the FD mount?
Or was it a sales gimmick to force people to buy new gear. Remember we're talking 1987, in technology terms digital photography for the masses was a long way off.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 14, 2014)

jrista said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



What I was trying to express is there is at last someone who is open to information as he might be mistaken about the benefits higher dr has - and proof, that the opposition to exmor and so on is based on wrong facts. Everybody else has to taken some position by now so further convincing might be useless.

As always, I'll also manage to sneak Magic Lantern into this post: Working with their raw histogram makes the whole thing much easier to understand as there are no highlights magically hidden anymore like in the Canon histogram which is made for jpeg files. It your camera plainly says what dr the scene and your sensor has, you have a better understanding when shadow noise or banding becomes a problem.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 14, 2014)

jrista said:


> Ooh, I didn't know ML had a RAW histogram. I think that, along with the DR expansion options, is pretty much the clincher for me. I just downloaded it, am going to give it a try today.



Hah, another CR heavyweight converted :-> ... note that ML can only display the dynamic range or ettr hint in live view and not in photo mode, the latter just has the histogram. But dual_iso is a blessing, apart from all the postprocessing hassle it's the "exmor for canon" and I use it more and more often.

Edit: make sure you enable the raw histogram and zebras for photo review mode (if you manage to find the option as a ML newbie ), the latter is raw version of the Canon highlight blinkies but also work for deep shadows.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 14, 2014)

Magic Lantern is the best gift you can give to your Canon DSLR. Completely transforms the camera and ups its value at least by 100% utterly reliable too, 1 million cameras using it and counting with no single brick, and can be removed without a trace. It's just a must for any Canon user even if you're going to use something trivial like the intervalometer sometime, etc..

When I use a Canon DSLR without ML, I feel the camera is crippled.


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 15, 2014)

Since this thread already is slightly sidestepped...
Does anyone know if their has been any *request* to the admins regarding setting up a section specifically for all things *Magic Lantern*? As it is now one has to search for ML and/or Magic Lantern and get posts that are spread out rather thin over both time and subjects. I would guess that the chances of keeping a clean forum section would be somewhat enhanced if the subject had a place to live.

Started to experiment a little on my own with my 50D, but sometimes I want to ask questions where I hope I can get swift and useful feedback. That would be here, and not on ML's own forums.

What do you think?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



The "coincidental" should have had irony tags, of course it isn't coincidental.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > dufflover said:
> ...



jrista, 

With the utmost respect, you are doing what you and most scientific types do repeatedly. They peruse numbers, equations and theories and come up with mathematical explanations of what will be observed. Subsequently their own observations don't quite match the predictions so alterations are made to the equations and lo and behold a new refined theory does more accurately express the observed result. In the mean time people who are not scientists lay out their observations in an unscientific way and are pilloried because their observations don't match the first set of equations, they might not express their observations in true scientific forms but they are still normally valid, particularly in the photography field because the end result is entirely observable.

This has happened several times, most notably with the crop camera pixel on target theorem. The "crop camera advantage" has come down from a nearly universally promoted and accepted 60% to even the staunchest proponents now claiming a more realistic 20% in ideal situations, even though actual images don't even support that much. Now I don't want to get sidetracked into that conversation yet again, I merely pointed it out as a example.

Now I process files for all kinds of photographers and I have observed exactly the same thing as Kieth and Sporgon, I don't understand the reason, I well understand linear capture "curves" and know DR is DR, not separated into highs and lows and all that, but I know for a fact that I have been unable to lower highlight detail in Nikon files that I could in Canon files. I understand and accept that Exmor sensors still have advantages in shadow details and total "DR", I also know, though can't explain why, Canon do have an advantage in highlight editability.

Kieth's bird image is exactly the kind of result I have seen many times.

What we need is some scientific person who actually makes their own observations that they trust to come up with the scientific explanation for the observations those of us that are actually doing it are seeing.


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2014)

unfocused said:


> You can be certain that Canon spends millions of dollars analyzing the market, determining what customers want and will buy will grudgingly accept and settle for


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > _"The switch from FD to EF in 1987 was clearly for the better."_
> ...



Well other companies tried to maintain their mounts, most notably Nikon, and the end results were horrific legacy issues as they swung between internal body AF motors and lens internal AF motors, partial control of electronic diaphragms and legacy mechanical apertures. Canon's best decision was all electronic EF lenses from the word go with lens internal AF motors and electronic apertures, as well as the contact flexibility to accommodate more modern features like IS and AF distance information etc. Where they might have had some fudge factor was the registry distance, from the FD's 42mm to the EF 44mm, this is what killed any chance of legacy compatibility, and had they maintained the 42mm then we might have seen dual capability early EOS bodies with mechanical aperture levers to control the FD diaphragms. But it wasn't to be........


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 15, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > _"The switch from FD to EF in 1987 was clearly for the better."_
> ...




They had to make a decision.... control the lens digitally... or control it with analog signals.

Unlike older systems where every function had it's own pin and there were even some systems where the lens was driven from a motor inside the camera body, the EF mount was simplicity redefined. Power, ground, data in, and data out, and a clocking signal. 

They really didn't have the option of a hybrid system as that would have done nothing well. Keep in mind that digital sensors were emerging then and the writing was on the wall.... the film DSLR was on the way out and there was going to be a massive upheaval in the industry. Lenses were already at the point where it made more sense to control them digitally so looking at the future, Canon really didn't have much of a choice.

BTW, I got my first digital camera in 1986....


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 15, 2014)

*Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications - Why Canon, Why? This is it?*



WarrenZ said:


> As an owner of the 7D, the specs just doesn't seem to make you want to buy this as soon as it comes out. The way I look at it, this camera represents the top of the crop line for Canon for then next 4 years --- 2018 -2019. It has no 4k, no RAW 1080p, no wifi and no sd uhs-ii. Now don't get me wrong, Canon makes solid products and I know the 7D Mark II will be a solid product in terms of performance and reliability, but Canon is just playing this way too safe. They are heading to fall behind the competition.
> 
> Tethered shooting is very nice and Canon had the opportunity to cut the cord with this, but no such luck, no WIFI -- wild ..I guess they still want to sell 800 WIFI add-ons which is completely bonkers to purchase. Would be nice to have some 4k in this body and maybe Im pushing it a bit, but at a minimum throw in RAW 1080p, the magic lantern guys are whipping up Magic with RAW video, does canon do anything to integrate that no! just 1080p60 with the same washed out codec is a waste of time. I am 100% team canon but man, they don't even have a high MP body, another one clocking in at 20MP.
> 
> Coming out with this camera with SD UHS-I is the clearest indicator that canon will never adopt uhs-ii until 2019 -- sorry canon 5D MarkIV guys, this is a big sign of disappointment to come. I will remain with Canon for stills, but they offer zero for video. Since video is a non event, the new focusing system as awesome as it is will not be used by me since I wont use video Long story short, I held out for years hoping the world for the 7D2, but canon played it WAY timid. I will just go full frame with a 6D. Canon, please stop stunting you products to protect your expensive Cinema Line by churning up tired features for the bottom end. 1080p60!!!!, wow how awesome...signing off.



Yeah it does seem silly to have left out 4k, now that it took this long for the 7D2 to arrive.
Quite a shame.
I'm even getting afraid that the 5D4 won't even offer 4k and 1080pRAW (which seems unthinkable, but maybe not to Canon).
If they don't everyone will just stick with 5D3+ML RAW or buy some non 7D2 non 5D4. Heck, SONY is coming out with a monster 4k videocam and it doesn't even cost more than the 1DC and yet it has gobs and gobs more features and a better sensor and everything under the sun. Canon will be squeezed out of their 1DC zone and have nothing new to entice anyone at the regular DSLR level.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 15, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D IV is now the real milestone...that's the one to watch. If Canon misses on the sensor IQ front for the 5D IV.........
> ...


Do they have time to let stuff that others are putting out 5 years ago trickle down from a 1DXs at this point?
And $8000 for an exmor-like sensor from Canon when an adapted A7R is a small fraction? Granted you'd still need another body along with the A7R, but even then A7R+5D3 still costs way less than a 1DXs type camera. And if you went D810 alone, then way, wayyy less.
And they are gonna be soon creamed on 4k video front.
The 5D4 could easily have worse video than even the 5D3. It will probably take at least a year for ML to get RAW going on it, assuming they even allow ML on it so if it doesn't offer RAW built-in, it would be, out of box far worse than the 5D3 for video. It really must have a good 4k 10bit and 1080pRAW. Otherwise it will land with the biggest thud in the lower to mid-end motion picture world ever. Simply producing a 5D3 built-in video but not it does 1080p60 instead of 1080p30 forget it.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 15, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> _"The switch from FD to EF in 1987 was clearly for the better."_
> 
> 
> Of course the switch to EF was the right decision, it didn't help "US" with thousands of dollars worth of gear though. Also you both seem to have missed my point, which was, Canon will do what they believe is best and give us the cameras we actually need, rather than profess to wanting, and they have been proven to get it right enough of the time to make the sales they do.



It kind of did help the Canon user though. And it was moving forward. It was not milking old product.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 15, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Only KR was completely wrong.
Any normal digital sensor is linear capture (there could be special types, but none of what people are using now is a special type).
Maybe the CFA filter might effect relative quickness to saturation between channels a bit, but other than a little but of that they all have the exact same highlight performance. They step up each channel in completely linear, exactly the same way. It's nothing at all like analog film.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Yeah you should. It has useful stuff for still like that too and for video.... I mean night and day! (so long as you can deal with RAW video) It's just mindblowingly better than what Canon firmware gets out of the 5D3. Like so totally much better it's hard to fathom. The Canon firmware doesn't remotely get the full power of the sensor for video out of the camera, not even close.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 15, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista,
> 
> With the utmost respect, you are doing what you and most scientific types do repeatedly. They peruse numbers, equations and theories and come up with mathematical explanations of what will be observed. Subsequently their own observations don't quite match the predictions so alterations are made to the equations and lo and behold a new refined theory does more accurately express the observed result. In the mean time people who are not scientists lay out their observations in an unscientific way and are pilloried because their observations don't match the first set of equations, they might not express their observations in true scientific forms but they are still normally valid, particularly in the photography field because the end result is entirely observable.



Only problem here is the reality does match in this case. And it's pretty clear to see that it simply has to in this case (other than possibly some little difference in differential rate at which R vs G vs B blows, but one word of warning there, don't get tricked by sRGB, that clips the red channel like mad and it's nothing to do with the CFA array).



> This has happened several times, most notably with the crop camera pixel on target theorem. The "crop camera advantage" has come down from a nearly universally promoted and accepted 60% to even the staunchest proponents now claiming a more realistic 20% in ideal situations, even though actual images don't even support that much.



Says you and one other guy.
What about all the posts from Romy, myself, Jrista, wildlife photographers, etc. etc. that don't all align with a 20% under the most ideal scenario and barely there if ever at all in the real world.
Also to be fair, from time to time, along with the pixels per duck formula a few words would be said about of course there can be some adjustments in real world due to different AA filter strengths and resolving abilities of lenses and split-green CFAs, etc.



> Now I process files for all kinds of photographers and I have observed exactly the same thing as Kieth and Sporgon, I don't understand the reason, I well understand linear capture "curves" and know DR is DR, not separated into highs and lows and all that, but I know for a fact that I have been unable to lower highlight detail in Nikon files that I could in Canon files. I understand and accept that Exmor sensors still have advantages in shadow details and total "DR", I also know, though can't explain why, Canon do have an advantage in highlight editability.



Yeah but what are you basing this on? What makes you so sure the highs were the same and that you are not just getting tricked by the different default mid-tone point placement and default metering placement for Nikon?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2014)

_"I don't know that we necessarily need a scientific person to hypothesize here. There is a simple explanation that accounts for what you see: metering. Since Canon's iFCL metering was introduced, their algorithms are geared towards preserving highlights."_

That is totally invalid as I was talking about pre iFCL files as well as post iFCL. The same thing is observable.

_"I too have noticed that Nikon cameras tend to run a bit bright in the highlights by default. There doesn't appear to be as much recoverability from a default metered exposure.

Again, though...this is all just illusory. It also doesn't actually change the core facts about dynamic range. "_

Illusionary - semantics, the people that regularly work both manufacturers files all say the same thing, if you expose the shots the same the Canon camera is at a very strong shadow disadvantage, if you "over expose" the Canon in relation to the Nikon, that is, get the optimal exposure for each sensor, then the differences are much smaller, yes they are there, but they are smaller. Further, if you expose both to the Canon's optimal exposure the Nikon will not have the highlight detail the Canon will.

It is the same as colours, everybody knows default Canon files are more red than Nikon files, it doesn't matter what body and lens, make a profile and you can get them close enough, but they are intrinsic characteristics of the manufacturers equipment. Canon mounts and dials go one way, Nikon go the other etc etc.

_"I think roughly a 20% difference on average is what your likely to get in an average situation."_

That is not what my testing showed, in "average situations" i.e. AF and handholding (I would venture is the "average" for most people most of the time) I found no reliable difference.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> ..... the film DSLR was on the way out .......



That would be an SLR


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



So buy a D810, nobody os stopping you.


The assumption is that I give a damn about video. I don't. I still don't own a DSLR with video and absolutely don't care if my next DSLR has it either.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > _"The switch from FD to EF in 1987 was clearly for the better."_
> ...



Long term yes, short and mid term no, it was a killer time for many, I maintained my FD gear until 2004, so was a very late adopter.

But that was my point, Canon seem to make the decisions, tough though they may be, that actually do make sense to us in the long run. A generation behind here, one ahead there, it pales into insignificance in the long term, but Canon have a proven track record of making the "right" decisions for photographers, not every photographer, but enough to keep a more than viable business running well up until this point, I don't know if anything has changed that we should doubt their future abilities.

The 5D MkIII is two years old now and is generally accepted as the best general purpose 135 format digital camera ever made by anybody, it is just now being "matched" by Nikon, not embarrassed, not left in the weeds, matched, quite how that situation brings about the constant Canon MUST DO THIS, or must do that, or improve three stops to be competitive etc etc just doesn't make sense. 

There is a complete disconnect between the rabid critics and the capabilities of the actual cameras available.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Says you and one other guy.
> What about all the posts from Romy, myself, Jrista, wildlife photographers, etc. etc. that don't all align with a 20% under the most ideal scenario and barely there if ever at all in the real world.



Well other than nobody ever actually quantifying >20%, let alone the farcical 60%, I have never seen your images and the Romy images you keep harping on about consist of this one post http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1280.msg258952#msg258952

If you do some searching you can find his 7D and 5D MkII comparison here http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/128151871 as everybody does he did the comparison in totally artificial conditions, especially considering he is a wild bird shooter, and how do you quantify >20% from that example?

Jrista's moon mages, after he was corrected on his methodology a large portion of his results were found faulty, and again, we are talking shooting conditions far from average, good mounts, Live View manual focus etc etc.

Show me your comparisons showing >20% crop camera advantage and I will find errors in your methodology too.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Yeah but what are you basing this on? What makes you so sure the highs were the same and that you are not just getting tricked by the different default mid-tone point placement and default metering placement for Nikon?



It doesn't matter, and that is what you theoretical procrastinators don't get. 

In Kieth's example with a Canon file those highlights are recoverable, if that was a Nikon file I do not believe they would have been. I don't profess to know why, and it normally takes you procrastinators a few years to catch up, but that is what I have found to be true, presumably Kieth and Sporgon have found that too.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> Well, as you say, maybe it's just time to get empirical. I'll be renting another camera soon here...I think probably the A7s and if I can the necessary adapter to use my Canon lenses, so the optics can be the same across the board. I believe, and this is based on my own experience with D800 and D600/610 files, that the differences can be quite meaningful. I believe the shadows are deeper, more richly colored deeper than a Canon file, etc. It's really just come down to the data, though...so I'm going to get some, and share it all. I'm actually not even expecting that to really end the debate...what some people consider meaningful could very well still be considered meaningless by others...but, at least I can put together some concrete, real-world data that can be referenced in the future.



As we are talking about a visual medium ot would make sense to post visual illustrations, unfortunately my hands are tied, the Nikon files I work are not mine and I have no examples of Canon's and Nikon's being shot during the same shoot I can post.

As for shadows, I 100% agree, Exmor sensors have a meaningful difference on screen, particularly if your screen is too bright, I need no "proof" of that. I do question the need to raise Zone II _"Textured black; the darkest part of the image in which slight detail is recorded"_ up significantly on any kind of regular basis though, to "need" to do that demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of core exposure ideas, and any hope of turning even Exmor Zone II exposed areas into meaningful detail with realistic colour, texture and detail is pointless. Yes it doesn't have the noise and banding a Canon file might have before finishing processing, but it still won't make for a pleasingly detailed and toned area of the image.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



I'm not missing the point, and I don't consider Nikon users dumb. I do take issue with constant references to "this is x amount better" when there is limited experience of both, and when that limited experience of both includes the obvious falsehood that both must be exposed the same, I cringe.

I am not saying Canon has more "high end DR" or that it has as much as Exmor, I am saying anybody that is so unfamiliar with the kit as to not know the differences in optimal exposures for both isn't going to get optimal results. Sure it might be classified as meter compensation, I have no problem with that, some cameras allow you to calibrate your meter; in the old film days we used to decide how far off the iso rating was to what we could actually shoot at, 1/3 stop was common for slide film.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 15, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah but what are you basing this on? What makes you so sure the highs were the same and that you are not just getting tricked by the different default mid-tone point placement and default metering placement for Nikon?
> ...



it doesn't matter if you might not be doing what you think you are doing and that you might not be comparing equivalent highlights??? How do you know anything then?


----------



## greger (Sep 15, 2014)

No built in WiFi! Seems to be a big omission of me. The 7Dll should be as astounding a camera upgrade was the 7D was in 2009. Why put it in 70D and not 7Dll? No articulating screen! I'm glad I'm happy with my 7D. I will save money and keep honing my skills.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 15, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Says you and one other guy.
> ...



I tested these things in pursuit of the best wildlife camera;

The problem with the crop advantage argument back in the day was that the files fresh out of the 7D had to be tweaked, worked and processed to get that 20%. (I say 20% but it wasn't 20%, it didn't make it to that level)
So if you didn't want to PP every picture to is best, you didn't see the advantage. This was somewhat true with the 5D II and it was very true with the 1D series bodies.

A person with no PP skills saw little or no benefit from the 7D crop.

This was a subject that was kicked to death back in the day. 

NOW, maybe with the 7D II it will have some decent processing power in body and we can have the debate again. Again I will buy one, test it against my 1D IV because that is what I am still using. If the 7D II is better I will switch. If not I will gift it to a relative and just laugh as everyone spouts the numbers out in the forum without ever testing one.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 15, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> Does anyone know if their has been any *request* to the admins regarding setting up a section specifically for all things *Magic Lantern*? As it is now one has to search for ML and/or Magic Lantern and get posts that are spread out rather thin over both time and subjects. What do you think?



There already is a "real "ML forum, so the question is why should be different here in the CR ML section. For one, the ml devs wouldn't be around so you'd get less competent answers. On the other hand, it would be less technical, over-modereated or geeky, the reason why I have lost interest posting over there. But if the result it's that any ML discussion should be moved into the ML forum because ML covers so many aspects of photography. So my vote is simply keep opening ML threads in the general photography forum.


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> So if you didn't want to PP every picture to is best, you didn't see the advantage.



I don't think I'll ever understand why some people will drop thousands on high end, precision tools but then never bother to learn the important parts of the endeavor. If you're not gonna do post, why even take the picture?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



+1
it's just not that hard to do

And it's ironic that it seems to be mostly those who rag on DRoners for being incompetent outside of the lab who seem to be the ones not able to get the most out of their equipment in the field even in a scenario where it should be pretty trivial to pull off, maybe not in every single case, but in a lot of cases. I mean if all you shoot is crows sitting in shadows while saving highlights at ISO6400 and up, it might be hard to see the reach advantage a lot, but.... or if you are using silly slow shutter speeds or don't bother to micr-focus adjust your lenses or something, but now these last two cases are just user error and extreme user error at that.

And I say this as someone who sold off my 7D and 5D2 for a 5D3, so it's not like I'm defending what I own. I own only the 5D3 at this point in time and I still say that the 7D gave me better reach, lab or real world and it is something I miss a bit, basically the only thing I miss about my 7D (although the fps was nice too, although only in some scenarios, in some it missed AF enough that the fps almost became the same as with the 5D3, in other cases the extra frames were a help, so that too a bit actually). If I had had the money at the time, I would've kept the 7D and I'd have used it for a lot of wildlife stuff since then.

I mean it's honestly trivial to use a 7D and a 5D3 and get hand-held snaps using AF where you clearly see quite noticeably more detail from the 7D shot when distance limited. And the 7D is probably the softest 18MP camera there is and yet it's still easy to make it pull more detail than a 5D2/5D3/1DX when distance limited.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Sep 15, 2014)

50 pages of trolling based on exactly 0 images from this yet-to-be-released camera? I would like to ask the basis for the assumption that this body would have the same sensor as on the 70D. Or is that based on exactly 0 shreds of evidence as well?


----------



## dufflover (Sep 15, 2014)

Seriously people still ask this? It's a RUMOUR site. RUMOUR discussion. I do not find it unreasonable at all that people state their assumption it is the same sensor (the fact it's the exact same res with similar features is saying more than just words it's a different sensor), then post their opinions on their guess.

And considering Canon recycled their old 18MP sensor for so long it is hardly a baseless assumption to make.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Sep 15, 2014)

Okay, thanks for confirming it is based on exactly 0 images from this camera and unpublished specifications for the sensor.


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 15, 2014)

dufflover said:


> And considering Canon recycled their old 18MP sensor for so long it is hardly a baseless assumption to make.



+1


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 15, 2014)

how big are the chances for 

USB3 ?
Ethernet?


----------



## Canon1 (Sep 15, 2014)

123Photog said:


> how big are the chances for
> 
> USB3 ?
> Ethernet?



I could see usb3... But how would this be useful? I use a high speed card reader already for file transfer. Is there another feature I'm not thinking of that would benefit?


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 15, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> 123Photog said:
> 
> 
> > how big are the chances for
> ...



i use my cameras tethered quite often.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 15, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



My 500mm F/4 IS is what I tested the 7D against other bodies on.
In the end any perceived benefit of the 7D crop went away when compared to the AF system of the 1D IV.
The resolution difference is small compared to the AF difference.

The 7D II can be pre ordered so it looks like I will be able to do the testing all over.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



There are many that buy the 7D to take better pictures. I personally know a few people that own the 7D, none of them PP that is 100% of the people I know.
Of those posting here probably close to 100% PP, in the real world I imagine the actual number lies somewhere in the middle.


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Sep 15, 2014)

Interesting that there's GPS but no WIFI, something I use all the time on my 6D for remote shooting. I'm guessing that this is because of the magnesium-alloy body?


----------



## Canon1 (Sep 15, 2014)

wellfedCanuck said:


> Interesting that there's GPS but no WIFI, something I use all the time on my 6D for remote shooting. I'm guessing that this is because of the magnesium-alloy body?



I'm guessing that it is because canon would rather sell you a wireless transmitter for $500+ rather than include it for free...


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> Whether to post process or not is a matter of preference. I have friends who are "pureists", in that they only like to photograph things as-is, do the best they possibly can with only the camera, and never post process anything. It's their form of the art...just them and the camera.
> 
> Personally, I prefer to do minimal post processing on my images when I have the option. I botch shots at times and have no option but to do a lot of recovery in post, but in general, I don't like to spend exorbitant numbers of hours processing photos. If I can get away with only some NR, sharpening, and maybe a slight boost to contrast and/or vibrancy/saturation, that's what I prefer. I can do that a lot more with my birds and wildlife...its a lot harder for me to get away with that when it comes to landscapes.



You don't do post just to correct mistakes, you do post work to make good photographs. Every wildlife photographer that's any good does extensive post work and its a huge part of the process. I've said before that I see a lot of people with really expensive gear taking bad photos and one of the biggest reasons they are bad is that they don't do any post. 



jrista said:


> Post processing is not a necessity.



It actually is. You either let the camera automate that process for you with the jpg engine or you do it yourself but one way or another it needs to be done. 

If people want to drop five figures on camera gear and then post ooc jpgs on their flickr, that's their prerogative. To me, it just seems like buying a ferrari and only ever driving it to the market three blocks away.


----------



## LesC (Sep 15, 2014)

Video review from WEX photographic where rep from Canon UK confirms it is a different sensor to the 70D:

http://www.wexphotographic.com/blog/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-announced


----------



## WarrenZ (Sep 16, 2014)

*Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications - Why Canon, Why? This is it?*



Keith_Reeder said:


> WarrenZ said:
> 
> 
> > As an owner of the 7D, the specs just doesn't seem to make you *me* want to buy this as soon as it comes out.
> ...



Apologies sir as I surely wasn't appointed or meant to speak on anyone's behalf. My comment was purely my opinion of the product and I have amended it to reflect as such.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Not my idea of minimal processing, besides, what you are saying is the appearance of detail in the bird is actually uncorrected noise. Which is a point I have made many times too.

But whatever, if it floats your boat I am glad you are happy.


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 19, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Not my idea of minimal processing, besides, what you are saying is the appearance of detail in the bird is actually uncorrected noise. Which is a point I have made many times too.



+10

IMHO minimal processing is just correcting known technical issues

Lens profile (chromatic and distortion correction)
Sharpening as determined previously and scientifically to overcome any lens softness, but that's all.
Levels and curves.
Saturation and colour balance (but even this can be overdone)
I just about accept selective noise reduction, but only to reduce in camera noise, not to make an artistic choice.

Beyond that is artistic choice.. and that's fine, but I don't count it as minimal.


----------

