# A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 15, 2014)

```
<div style="float: right; margin:0 0 76px 0px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=17033">Tweet</a></div>
<p>There’s not a lot being said about the upcoming DSLR from Canon. We’re getting little bits of information, and what we’re getting is going to be true. However, Canon Japan has been very proactive in stopping leaks within the various subsidiaries of Canon Inc. We, <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_7dmk2.html" target="_blank">and others have been told that some past reviewers and journalists</a> have been left out of the loop this go around. Canon seems to be taking leaks a lot more seriously than Sony and Nikon, who in my opinion, leak stuff themselves.</p>
<p>This is a small rundown of what we know and can publish about the EOS 7D Mark II (If that’s what it’s called).</p>
<ul>
<li>Full metal body (EOS-1 build quality)</li>
<li>EOS-1 style top plate</li>
<li>New sensor technology (multi layer)</li>
<li>No Wifi built-in</li>
<li>Not touch screen, super durable LCD cover</li>
<li>12fps shooting (or faster)</li>
<li>Dual Pixel AF</li>
<li>New AF system</li>
</ul>
<p>This will probably turn out to be Canon’s best specced camera ever. We’re also told, that just like the EOS 5D Mark III launch. This camera should be available pretty soon after the announcement.</p>
<p>Another major US retailer confirmed to us that the EOS 7D is discontinued. They have been told to remove their display models of the camera and that no more would be available to order. This follows Amazon listing the camera as discontinued.</p>
<p>If you have any more information about the camera, or any of Canon’s other coming products. <a href="http://www.sendanonymousemail.net/" target="_blank">You can mail us anonymously here</a>.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 15, 2014)

hmm would a multi-layer sensor AND dual pixel make sense together?


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 15, 2014)

I don't know about the layered sensor or the 12fps but it is speced better than the 61 af point, 24mp, 10fps body I'd like to see. Soon all will be revealed....


----------



## LuCoOc (Aug 15, 2014)

If this comes at a reasonable price (whatever that is... 2-2.5k maybe?) it will be hard to resist very long. I did not plan to upgrade my current 7D but the specs look promising.

I hope they slap out that 100-400 II along with it finally....


----------



## zim (Aug 15, 2014)

_what we know and *can * publish_

I think it's what you *can't * publish we are all interested in! ;D


But that is one heck of a spec list, let the hype go hyper


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 15, 2014)

EOS 1 style top plate = no pop up flash ?


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 15, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> New sensor technology (multi layer)



Wow...this is huge if Canon can do what Foveon/Sigma could not (build a multi-layer sensor with good color separation and low noise at high ISO).

AA filter? Hope so.

I'll believe it when I see it, but I'm hopeful.


----------



## bseitz234 (Aug 15, 2014)

man, if half of that spec list comes true, and the launch price is $2k or less, I'm going to have a hard time waiting for refurbs to show up...


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Aug 15, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> EOS 1 style top plate = no pop up flash ?



The pop-up flash on the 7D is really important to me as an external flash controller, but it's pretty useless for anything else so I'd gladly swap it for the built-in ability to control RT flashes. I don't think that has been rumoured, but it would be a logical step and very welcome.


----------



## candyman (Aug 15, 2014)

bseitz234 said:


> man, if half of that spec list comes true, and the launch price is $2k or less, I'm going to have a hard time waiting for refurbs to show up...




With the few rumored specs here this may be top of the line camera with an APS-C sensor that will target semi-pro and pro. My expectation is that the price will be in the same league as the 5D MKIII at launch.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2014)

> EOS-1 style top plate



No mode dial?


----------



## Marauder (Aug 15, 2014)

Tremendously exciting and tantalizing!!!


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 15, 2014)

New sensor technology in a pro camera? Sounds risky to me.

Isn't customary for Canon to first release new tech, e.g. DPAF, in lower series bodies?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 15, 2014)

I still can't see having no wifi or touchscreen. Canon has always been great with the user interface and this seems like a step backwards from the 70D.....


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 15, 2014)

Sounds like Canon is coming out with a pretty good body. Good on em!


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 15, 2014)

Antono Refa said:


> New sensor technology in a pro camera? Sounds risky to me.
> 
> Isn't customary for Canon to first release new tech, e.g. DPAF, in lower series bodies?



not really. FF sensors was out on 1 series first, 1 series AF, metering was all advanced over prosumer.

I think canon puts it in the body it thinks it will fit versus wait for the next go around. 19 point AF and spot AF was introduced on the 7D, same with the iFCL meter.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 15, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I still can't see having no wifi or touchscreen. Canon has always been great with the user interface and this seems like a step backwards from the 70D.....



They've taken steps backwards before, such as eliminating (and then bringing back) the 1:1 pixel option in video modes.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 15, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I still can't see having no wifi or touchscreen. Canon has always been great with the user interface and this seems like a step backwards from the 70D.....



It's a bit surprising to me too, but hardly deal breaking features for my own use. My own suspicion on this front is that some of the prototypes had one or both of those features and the "go' or "no go" was based on testing results. If the wifi performed poorly due to interference with the body, it might have prompted them to pull it rather than have it detract from the overall experience. The lack of a touch screen is more of a surprise. I guess they just decided that they wanted a tougher screen than they could implement with the level of durability they desired. I think this is going to be a pro-level "tank" of a camera!


----------



## bseitz234 (Aug 15, 2014)

candyman said:


> bseitz234 said:
> 
> 
> > man, if half of that spec list comes true, and the launch price is $2k or less, I'm going to have a hard time waiting for refurbs to show up...
> ...



When it was launched, though, the original 7D was exactly that, was it not? And it was $1799? Not saying it couldn't be as much as the 5d3, just that I don't think it necessarily will. I'm certainly not counting on $2k, but I'll be disappointed if it's north of $2500. Time will tell!


----------



## surapon (Aug 15, 2014)

"This will probably turn out to be Canon’s best specced camera ever. We’re also told, that just like the EOS 5D Mark III launch. This camera should be available pretty soon after the announcement."

Yes, Yes, Yes, I will buy one ASAP, When this New Baby on the Market.
Surapon


----------



## ScottyP (Aug 15, 2014)

We’re also told, that just like the EOS 5D Mark III launch. This camera should be available pretty soon after the announcement.




Could that mean in time for Christmas? How quick did the 5d3 hit shelves after formal announcement?


----------



## DominoDude (Aug 15, 2014)

With full metal body and specs along that line, we might as well nickname it *The Maul* - it will smash and crush!


----------



## SilverSnake (Aug 15, 2014)

I really hope that the removal of WiFi doesn't mean they have scrapped GPS as well. If the listed specs turns out to be true (and CR seems confident) and it comes with GPS and with good high ISO performance, then I think this will be what I buy myself for Xmas this year, price be damned!


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 15, 2014)

bseitz234 said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > bseitz234 said:
> ...



A couple of things that have been leaked will likely send this camera into the 4K range:

EOS 1 build quality
EOS 1DX type features

Those two bits of info are far better than the 7D ever was and while it comes close to the 5D3, the EOS 1 build quality will definitely demand a premium. Consider this in the price range of the 1DIV with an inflation adjustment.

I'm guessing 3500 to 4200 for the body and leaning toward the upper end just because Canon will start out milking us for the R&D costs up front as they always do.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 15, 2014)

Call me skeptical, but Canon is notorious for crippling their cameras to keep them from cannibalizing sales of the high end. I will be shocked if it's better spec'd than the 1D X, which it sounds like it will be in all ways other than the FF sensor. Unless it costs more than the 5D III, that is.


----------



## ScottyP (Aug 15, 2014)

Multi-layer with DPAF. 

IF that is true, and 
IF it really works, and 
IF it represents the kind of major IQ improvement required to justify Canon's taking the major trouble of doing it....

And to take that further, into wild speculation territory...

That could be a setback for Sony trying to break into the serious/pro photography market. And if it is a hiccup for Sony, it would be pneumonia for Nikon, who depends on Sony sensors, and who seems to be struggling financially lately. If Sony goes some other direction in sensor development and quits innovating on 35mm stills sensors, it could be the beginning of the end for Nikon, who seems to have let its sensor development atrophy a bit while outsourcing that job to Sony.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 15, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> bseitz234 said:
> 
> 
> > candyman said:
> ...



I would argue that the 7D had similar build quality and features to the 1DIII, which is what was out at the time the 7D was announced.


----------



## ewg963 (Aug 15, 2014)

I'm excited  Now what's the price point? Hmmmmmmmm.....


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Aug 15, 2014)

:-\ hmm, if these specs are true, it does not sound exciting.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2014)

Regarding the 'EOS 1 build quality', that's carefully phrased. It doesn't say '1DIV' or '1D X'. It's technically correct to say the 5DIII has 'EOS 1 weather sealing', since Canon called it equivalent to the EOS 1N film body (but that's not up to the level of the 1D X).


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 15, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > bseitz234 said:
> ...



No I dont agree that the 7D comes close to the 1DIII in build quality. There are fundamental differences in many areas which separate the two. Shutter and sealing are good examples. 

Much of my cost basis is based on the fact that Canon has nothing in the EOS 1 lineup now other than the 1DX. There is a very large gap between the 7D and 1DX. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being called the 1D mark V.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 15, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Regarding the 'EOS 1 build quality', that's carefully phrased. It doesn't say '1DIV' or '1D X'. It's technically correct to say the 5DIII has 'EOS 1 weather sealing', since Canon called it equivalent to the EOS 1N film body (but that's not up to the level of the 1D X).



So Canon only has one EOS-1 series camera in their lineup now. If they say EOS-1 build quality it should be on "par" with the 1DX and not the 5DIII.


----------



## roxics (Aug 15, 2014)

I don't want to hear anything else until it includes 4K internal video recording, less moire and a headphone jack. Among other things. 

As far as I'm concerned (and I'm going to sound like a jerk to some people by saying this) photo featues don't need anymore improvement. We've had awesome stills cameras for the last five years and if you can't take a good picture with one of those than you suck as a photographer. It is video functionality that Canon is seriously lacking behind on compared to its competitors.

The original 7D was the first of the Canon cames to features it's now standard video functionality that made its way into every other Canon camera. I expect the 7DmkII to usher in the new standard for Canon video functionality.


----------



## candyman (Aug 15, 2014)

bseitz234 said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > bseitz234 said:
> ...




Maybe...
I think that the 7D MK II (with those specs) will fill the gap that the 1D MK IV left. The 7D could not fill that gap and wasn't targeted for that. But the 7D MK II will outperform the 1D MK IV and is able to fille the gap. Those that are not able to afford the 7D MKII will go for 70D or the successor of the 70D. My personal believe is that this spec game of Canon is done to take photographers to the next higher performer camera as part of sales strategy. It happened at least with me going from 550D to 7D to 5D MKIII ;D


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 15, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> There is a very large gap between the 7D and 1DX. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being called the 1D mark V.



I'd be shocked if they released a body with the 1-series name on it with an APS-c sensor inside.

It's not a follow-on to the 7D if it's two or three times the price.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 15, 2014)

candyman said:


> I think that the 7D MK II (with those specs) will fill the gap that the 1D MK IV left. The 7D could not fill that gap and wasn't targeted for that. But the 7D MK II will outperform the 1D MK IV and is able to fille the gap. Those that are not able to afford the 7D MKII will go for 70D or the successor of the 70D. My personal believe is that this spec game of Canon is done to take photographers to the next higher performer camera as part of sales strategy. It happened at least with me going from 550D to 7D to 5D MKIII ;D



If they price it too high, then a lot of people that have been waiting for it will go buy a 70D instead.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding the 'EOS 1 build quality', that's carefully phrased. It doesn't say '1DIV' or '1D X'. It's technically correct to say the 5DIII has 'EOS 1 weather sealing', since Canon called it equivalent to the EOS 1N film body (but that's not up to the level of the 1D X).
> ...



What makes you think _Canon_ (officially) said, "EOS-1 build quality"? Even if they did, 'EOS-1' is a generic statement, not a specific model designation. If this turns out to be a $3999 EOS 1D Mark V, it'll have build quality equivalent to the 1D X. If it's a 7D Mark II, it won't.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 15, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > I think that the 7D MK II (with those specs) will fill the gap that the 1D MK IV left. The 7D could not fill that gap and wasn't targeted for that. But the 7D MK II will outperform the 1D MK IV and is able to fille the gap. Those that are not able to afford the 7D MKII will go for 70D or the successor of the 70D. My personal believe is that this spec game of Canon is done to take photographers to the next higher performer camera as part of sales strategy. It happened at least with me going from 550D to 7D to 5D MKIII ;D
> ...



Sounds like an excellent marketing strategy to me.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 15, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Canon hasn't said squat. However that is the rumor, that it will have EOS1 build quality. We can read into that a lot of things.

From CR:

"A good source tells us that the new camera will have EOS-1 build quality, which we expected."

Regardless, I expect Canon to drain my bank account just like they always do. Something they are very very good at!


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 15, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> Regardless, I expect Canon to drain my bank account just like they always do. Something they are very very good at!



You think?

I'm still using my 10-year-old and 9-year-old Canon dSLRs because none of the updates since have been particularly interesting. I have several friends with Canon dSLRs, and they are similar. One is still using his 40D, one is still using his Rebel XT, one is still using his T3i. I'm still using a 20D, 5D and a T2i at work. I've watched every Canon release carefully in the last 10+ years.


----------



## JRPhotos (Aug 15, 2014)

I hope to see the top style plate or at least the same as the 7D, GPS and maybe more focal points. Either way, I'm looking forward to the upgrade and have been saving!


----------



## Krob78 (Aug 15, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Exactly! 8)



> Sounds like an excellent marketing strategy to me.


 Agreed East Wind! 8)

I'm glad I pre-ordered my 7D MK II 18 months ago... I can't wait for it to get here. : and it sounds to me that it's like the original 7D from a marketing standpoint.. It'll be ground breaking for what segment it represents... Just like the original! Wildlife & Bird photogs are going to love it!! I know I will! Again, so glad I pre-ordered! :


----------



## Marauder (Aug 15, 2014)

I think it unlikely the price will be north of $3k, regardless of its features and build. The rumours of $2000-2500 seem about right--much higher than any APS-C camera ever, but not into APS-H or full-frame territory. I think if it was going to be 1DIV price point, it would have a APS-H or full frame sensor. Lots of people (myself included) willing to pony up $2500 for a superb APS-C camera. Get into 1D series pricing, might as well buy a 1DX (or whatever replaces it)!


----------



## Marauder (Aug 15, 2014)

Marauder said:


> I think it unlikely the price will be north of $3k, regardless of its features and build. The rumours of $2000-2500 seem about right--much higher than any APS-C camera ever, but not into APS-H or full-frame territory. I think if it was going to be 1DIV price point, it would have a APS-H or full frame sensor. Lots of people (myself included) willing to pony up $2500 for a superb APS-C camera. Get into 1D series pricing, might as well buy a 1DX (or whatever replaces it)!



Clarification--not into 1 series APS-H or full frame territory!


----------



## JRPhotos (Aug 15, 2014)

If it's more than $2k, I'll just go with the 70D. :|


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 15, 2014)

Since we are all having fun predicting...

7D should be less expensive than a 1D BUT - Canon has become greedy the last couple years and they are playing this launch a lot like Apple. They are trying to get the market in a frenzy by holding back info and tempting everyone with small tidbits of data. So it will be expensive I'm afraid. I predict $2799 to $2999. Half the the price of the 1DX and close but not above the 5D3. I would love it to be less but from what they are saying, it won't be. And people will still buy it, esp if it actually works and lives up to the hype by 80% or more. (Like the 5D3 did.)

I've decided that while WiFi (bigger loss) and Touchscreen would be missed, it wouldn't kill it for me. But without those, I think Canon should be careful how close to the moon they make the price.

If it has no pop-up flash with a 1D type metal top (meaning no GPS either, sorry) then again, they better not kill us with the price. I also want RT flash control built in, esp if there is no pop up flash. It's about time this feature is built-in on every camera Canon makes.

With cinema being such a big deal lately at Canon, I think the 7D2 will be a video powerhouse which will likely make it very expensive, maybe even above $3000. Which will likely put me out of the running since all I want are the specs we've heard so far, faster fps, solid build and spectacular sensor. 

If the camera magically comes in under $2500, I'll buy it soon. If not, I'll probably just get a 70D and wait a year or more unless the X-mas deals are incredible.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 15, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > candyman said:
> ...



Doesn't to me. I'll bet the margins on this camera are double (or so) from the margins on a 70D.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 15, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless, I expect Canon to drain my bank account just like they always do. Something they are very very good at!
> ...



Depends on what you shoot. For those of us that shoot sports, wildlife, other fast action, then we would be missing out on a VASTLY improved AF system in the likes of 1DX and 5D3. The 7D doesnt even come close to being able to track as well as the new systems can. If you shoot landscapes, weddings, products, then all of that doesn't really matter.

I am honestly very tired of dealing with the 7D system which for what I need is really lacking. I have found myself using my 5DIII and just dealing with the crop. I cant afford to spend 5K on a wildlife trip and throw away half of my shots because the AF cant cut it. 

I am envious of those like yourself that have been able to keep the old tech working for you.


----------



## Northstar (Aug 15, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Call me skeptical, but Canon is notorious for crippling their cameras to keep them from cannibalizing sales of the high end. I will be shocked if it's better spec'd than the 1D X, which it sounds like it will be in all ways other than the FF sensor. Unless it costs more than the 5D III, that is.



agree.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 15, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



I shoot primarily fast-action.


----------



## Northstar (Aug 15, 2014)

these specs are perfect for field sports during the day!


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 15, 2014)

People shouldn't be defensive toward 7D II that may have build quality on par with a 1D. It will in no way take away from the 1D X, they will be two different animals.

When Canon released the 1D X and discontinued the 1D IV it disappointed many wildlife and sports photographers. It is not out of the realm of possibility that a 7D II is intended to fill the void left by the 1D IV. 
It would lack the same thing the 1D IV lacked, a full frame sensor.

Going forward the 1D designation will be for FF bodies only, Canon will never again name a crop sensor body with a 1.
5D will be of less build quality and still have a higher number on the line, only because Canon holds the FF sensor in higher regard.
A 7D with the same type of build as a quality as a 1D, very possible. Canon will still hold it in lower regard because it is a crop sensor.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 15, 2014)

roxics said:


> I don't want to hear anything else until it includes 4K internal video recording, less moire and a headphone jack. Among other things.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned (and I'm going to sound like a jerk to some people by saying this) photo featues don't need anymore improvement. We've had awesome stills cameras for the last five years and if you can't take a good picture with one of those than you suck as a photographer. It is video functionality that Canon is seriously lacking behind on compared to its competitors.
> 
> The original 7D was the first of the Canon cames to features it's now standard video functionality that made its way into every other Canon camera. I expect the 7DmkII to usher in the new standard for Canon video functionality.



The 5DII was the first Canon DSLR to feature video, and it was THE camera that kick-started the DSLR video craze.


----------



## adamdoesmovies (Aug 15, 2014)

roxics said:


> I don't want to hear anything else until it includes 4K internal video recording, less moire and a headphone jack. Among other things.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned (and I'm going to sound like a jerk to some people by saying this) photo featues don't need anymore improvement. We've had awesome stills cameras for the last five years and if you can't take a good picture with one of those than you suck as a photographer. It is video functionality that Canon is seriously lacking behind on compared to its competitors.
> 
> The original 7D was the first of the Canon cames to features it's now standard video functionality that made its way into every other Canon camera. I expect the 7DmkII to usher in the new standard for Canon video functionality.



I second this. My 7D is an incredible camera already. As you said, if you can't take a good picture with any camera made within the last 5 years, you suck as a photographer. There's very few places this camera can really improve for photography, but video has a lot of room for growth. Even within that, though, the 7D already contains the hardware ability to do things like custom resolutions and frame rates (magic lantern allows this), but the stock firmware won't let it. 

As a user who primarily uses my 7D for video, the no-WIFI thing makes me nearly completely uninterested in this camera. I've specifically been waiting for the ability to monitor using my phone, even going as far as buying an extra phone in anticipation of this feature (I use it with my GoPro currently). I don't need a few more pixels, I need more built-in video functionality that doesn't require buying a bunch of stuff to bolt to the side of my camera.

They complained it was difficult to figure out where to put the antenna. However, they could have put one in the plastic flash housing, in the perimeter bezel around the main LCD or top display, near (or even in) the CF/SD card slot, somewhere behind the rubber grip, or near the ports on the side. A creative engineer could even have figured out a "window" of some sort. A combination of any two of these spots would provide adequate coverage, but this is really about milking the accessories market. Unfortunately, I refuse to pay them 400+ bucks for what is probably a 5 dollar Foxconn 802.11 card in a fancy housing.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 15, 2014)

roxics said:


> As far as I'm concerned ...photo featues don't need anymore improvement. We've had awesome stills cameras for the last five years ...It is video functionality that Canon is seriously lacking behind on compared to its competitors.



Even though I have no interest in video, I have to agree with this. The improvement curve for still photography is getting a bit flat. 

The problem is that Canon, like any camera manufacturer, stays in business by convincing/showing its customer base that they need to buy a newer model. No camera manufacturer wants to build the "ultimate" camera. 

For the still photography base, what will the manufacturers be able to "improve" to convince me to buy another body? Any improvement offered has to be significantly different/better to convince me to stick a crowbar in my wallet.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 15, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Since we are all having fun predicting...
> 
> 7D should be less expensive than a 1D BUT - Canon has become greedy the last couple years and they are playing this launch a lot like Apple. They are trying to get the market in a frenzy by holding back info and tempting everyone with small tidbits of data. So it will be expensive I'm afraid. I predict $2799 to $2999. Half the the price of the 1DX and close but not above the 5D3. I would love it to be less but from what they are saying, it won't be. And people will still buy it, esp if it actually works and lives up to the hype by 80% or more. (Like the 5D3 did.)
> 
> ...



I concur. I'm hoping for $2000-2500, but it could go as high as 3 grand and still keep the same base of users. The only way I can see if go north of that by much is if (and that's a big IF) the new sensor actually matches the IQ/noise performance of the APS-H cameras like the 1D IV or the older full-frame like the 5D II. Or, if it comes close to the IQ/ISO performance of the 5D III. I'm not techie enough to comment on that, but plenty of the more technical members have given fairly comprehensive explanations of why that is very unlikely, even with new ground-breaking sensor technology. 

IMHO, it breaks down to this--if the camera can deliver amazing AF, build, frame-rate and buffer and at least match the IQ of other APS-C cameras, then it will be "worth" it to many wildlife/sports/action shooters at $2,000-$3,000. In order to be "worth" significantly more than $3,000, it would need to have all those other features _*and * _ have IQ that significantly exceeds all other APS-C sensors, with a performance on-par with the APS-H sensor. In effect, I think it would *need * to match the IQ of the 1D IV to command a 1D IV price-point. As to what the final price is, that will hinge heavily on the IQ the new sensor can deliver. If it's merely very good "APS-C" quality, then it's probable that it will be less than $3,000. _*Significantly * _ better than other APS-C IQ, then it will be north of $3,000. 

If it's north of 3k, then I'm out, at least till the price drops. Only difference is that I'll keep my 7D rather than looking at the 70D! 8) A second-hand 1D IV also becomes an attractive option, especially if their prices drop when the 7D II comes out! ;D


----------



## roxics (Aug 15, 2014)

Etienne said:


> The 5DII was the first Canon DSLR to feature video, and it was THE camera that kick-started the DSLR video craze.



You are correct. But it was the 7D that was the first to have all of the frame rates and resolutions that became standard on all Canon cameras thereafter. The 5DII was at first limited because Canon didn't know video would be a hit. The 7D was launched with full video support.


----------



## justawriter (Aug 15, 2014)

I'll be waiting on this one, not because of specs, but because my finances dictate that I won't be replacing my 7D until early 2016. I should be up to 110K exposures by then, which seems like a good point to make it may backup body. Who knows, maybe by that time Canon will have come out with a 50MP camera with a built in coffeemaker and a unicorn for $500. ;D
In any event, it looks like I will have to have plenty of napkins on hand to wipe away the drool for the next 18 months.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 15, 2014)

Although video is not my "thing," and I don't agree (at all!) with the assessment that stills cameras cannot benefit from technological improvements, I do appreciate the videographers' desire for new features for their needs. Not much has been said about the 7D II in terms of video lately, so it's a huge question mark. That being said the fact that the new sensor is DPAF is certainly a benefit to AF in video, but I'm a bit surprised at the lack of a touch-screen, given how useful it is for rack focussing the 70D's DPAF video. 

For myself, not really being into video much (use it sparingly) and I've always tended to use "Quick" focus for live-view shooting, the absence of a touch screen is a surprise, but it was never more than a tertiary feature for my usage. Do our video enthusiast members have any input on this news? If I was into video, I think the absence of a touch screen to change focus would be a big deal and I'm wondering if this is disquieting news for the video crowd?


----------



## cosmopotter (Aug 15, 2014)

Don't forget that earlier reports mentioned the new sensor technology would be applied to other products following this release. It is likely that the 5D Mk IV and maybe a new EOS-1 will follow this release to add the new goodies. The leapfrog effect happens often just as many of the features of the 70D leapfrogged over the 7D (not all features). The 7D replacement is first and afterall, why mess with your top cameras. Make sure it works on the 7D before you mess with the 5D and 1D. Makes sense to me.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 15, 2014)

justawriter said:


> I'll be waiting on this one, not because of specs, but because my finances dictate that I won't be replacing my 7D until early 2016. I should be up to 110K exposures by then, which seems like a good point to make it may backup body. Who knows, maybe by that time Canon will have come out with a 50MP camera with a built in coffeemaker and a unicorn for $500. ;D
> In any event, it looks like I will have to have plenty of napkins on hand to wipe away the drool for the next 18 months.



Built in coffeemaker AND a unicorn! Bet it also makes rainbow flavoured popcorn! Sign me up! LOL :


----------



## Marauder (Aug 15, 2014)

cosmopotter said:


> Don't forget that earlier reports mentioned the new sensor technology would be applied to other products following this release. It is likely that the 5D Mk IV and maybe a new EOS-1 will follow this release to add the new goodies. The leapfrog effect happens often just as many of the features of the 70D leapfrogged over the 7D (not all features). The 7D replacement is first and afterall, why mess with your top cameras. Make sure it works on the 7D before you mess with the 5D and 1D. Makes sense to me.



+1 I think a lot of the "Canon wouldn't do this or that" or "Canon wouldn't undermine their top of the line, or full frame camera" talk ignores the fact that "lesser" models introduce new tech all the time. The 7D AF system is getting a little long in the tooth now, but it blew away the 5D II AF system when it came out. The 45 point AF system that (in various formats) dominated the 1 series from the film 1v right through to the 1D IV was actually *introduced * on the EOS 3. At the time, the top of the line EOS 1n film camera only had a 5 point AF system! And it would be two *more years * before the EOS 1v would bring the 45 point AF system to the 1 line!!!


----------



## roxics (Aug 15, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Do our video enthusiast members have any input on this news? If I was into video, I think the absence of a touch screen to change focus would be a big deal and I'm wondering if this is disquieting news for the video crowd?



Yes and that was the first thing I thought of when it said no touch screen. I don't actually buy that rumor to be honest. 

I think at this point a lot of the features that woud improve video would also improve stills capability. DPAF is handy not just for video but also for stills when shooting liveview. Higher dynamic range benefits everyone. 4K video with a less compresed or more efficient 10bit 4:2:2 or better codec would be beneficial to sports/wildlife shooters who are ok with 8MP stills, especially if they can shoot at 24 or 30fps. A hybrid OVF/EVF or even just a high quality EVF would beneficial to both for having a full 100% viewfinder and the ability to see your images in playback even in the bright sun. Focus peaking, like DPAF is useful for video and stills in LV mode.


----------



## candyman (Aug 15, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> People shouldn't be defensive toward 7D II that may have build quality on par with a 1D. It will in no way take away from the 1D X, they will be two different animals.
> 
> When Canon released the 1D X and discontinued the 1D IV it disappointed many wildlife and sports photographers. It is not out of the realm of possibility that a 7D II is intended to fill the void left by the 1D IV.
> It would lack the same thing the 1D IV lacked, a full frame sensor.
> ...




+1
Better said than I did a couple of posts ago.


----------



## cosmopotter (Aug 15, 2014)

Marauder said:


> cosmopotter said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget that earlier reports mentioned the new sensor technology would be applied to other products following this release. It is likely that the 5D Mk IV and maybe a new EOS-1 will follow this release to add the new goodies. The leapfrog effect happens often just as many of the features of the 70D leapfrogged over the 7D (not all features). The 7D replacement is first and afterall, why mess with your top cameras. Make sure it works on the 7D before you mess with the 5D and 1D. Makes sense to me.
> ...



Let's not forget the 6D in this conversation too. I have been trying to talk myself into getting a 6D body to accompany my 70D but I can't do it. The AF on the 6D seems so antiquated compared with my 70D. Other than the dual pixel function, the 70D has the same still picture focus as the 7D (19 cross type). Why didn't the 6D at least have the same as the 7D? A classic case of dumbing it down to fit the marketing model. I'm sure Canon thought that If the AF function was too good it would cannibalize 5D3 sales but I don't think so. I simply can't afford a 5D3 so why not make the 6D the best entry level FF they can make it with a few upgrades. I think the 6D could benefit from a makeover even though it's only 2 years old.


----------



## Ale (Aug 15, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Wow...this is huge if Canon can do what Foveon/Sigma could not (build a multi-layer sensor with good color separation and low noise at high ISO).
> 
> AA filter? Hope so.



If the sensor is Foveon-style and multi-layered, wouldn't it eliminate the need for an AA-filter, as there would be no Bayer CFA if the colors were separated in different layers?


----------



## Philshoz (Aug 15, 2014)

Is it feasible that it could be called an EOS 4D ???

Just asking.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 15, 2014)

First, I think the speculation placing the cost of the 7DII into 5DIII territory is highly unlikely. If that were to be the case, the 7DII would be targeted to a much different (and much smaller) market than than the original 7D. 

Generally, though, the specs confirm what I was expecting: a top of the line APS-C camera that sets industry standards, coupled with features that are targeted to very specific users. Just as the 5DIII was clearly targeted to wedding and event photographers with its low-light capabilities, Canon seems to be targeting the 7DII to sports and wildlife photographers. 

That doesn't mean it won't be a great all-around camera (just as the 5DIII is), it just means that Canon seems to like to focus on a particular buyer base in order to assure that their upper end cameras have a clear market. If done right, this could be a must-have for sports and wildlife photographers. (Which, while not nearly as large of a professional base as wedding photographers, does have a large contingent of amateur users with high disposable income.)

I tend to agree with Neuro that the "1D build quality" may not mean what some people think it does. It might exceed the 5DIII, but I just don't think there is enough of a market for a $3,000 APS-C camera to justify the kind of bombproof construction the 1D series is noted for. (Unless of course, I'm seriously overestimating the cost of producing 1DX build quality – perhaps it's not as much of a cost factor as I think, given modern production technology.)

The lack of touch screen (if true) tells me that this is not a video-oriented camera. Perhaps Canon's market research shows that videographers don't buy 7Ds. Personally, I'm a bit disappointed because a good touch screen system would certainly be preferable when trying to navigate Canon's convoluted and increasingly complex menu systems. I can only imagine that, if true, it was because they did not feel comfortable with the durability of the touch screen system.

Personally, I'm not sure why you would use dual-pixel technology without a touch-screen, but then I've never been that hopped up on dual-pixels anyway.

Regardless. This will be an interesting release and I will enjoy the build-up over the coming weeks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2014)

Philshoz said:


> Is it feasible that it could be called an EOS 4D ???



Previously on this forum, it's been stated no, because of the negative connotation of the number four in Japanese culture. Of course, that didn't stop Nikon...


----------



## Reiep (Aug 15, 2014)

I'm also with the ones that would regret not having wifi, I'm now using my iPhone to tether the 6D and even if it's maybe 1% of my shots, those wouldn't have been possible otherwise, except with a huge amount of trial and errors. It would really be a step back IMHO.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 15, 2014)

unfocused said:


> I tend to agree with Neuro that the "1D build quality" may not mean what some people think it does. It might exceed the 5DIII, but I just don't think there is enough of a market for a $3,000 APS-C camera to justify the kind of bombproof construction the 1D series is noted for. (Unless of course, I'm seriously overestimating the cost of producing 1DX build quality – perhaps it's not as much of a cost factor as I think, given modern production technology.)



The Nikon D800 (and I think D300s) have the same internal build quality as the 1D/D4 type cameras, aside from the improved sealing. I doubt that it adds all that much to the production cost.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 15, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I tend to agree with Neuro that the "1D build quality" may not mean what some people think it does. It might exceed the 5DIII, but I just don't think there is enough of a market for a $3,000 APS-C camera to justify the kind of bombproof construction the 1D series is noted for. (Unless of course, I'm seriously overestimating the cost of producing 1DX build quality – perhaps it's not as much of a cost factor as I think, given modern production technology.)
> ...





neuroanatomist said:


> Philshoz said:
> 
> 
> > Is it feasible that it could be called an EOS 4D ???
> ...



But perhaps gave credence to the Japanese belief 

I think it will be interesting to see how the combination of specification and price shed light on how confident Canon are with the FF premium. 

I still think the RRP will be the same as, or notionally lower than the 6D, with a camera that is as well spec'd to day as the 7D was for its day. Didn't Canon introduce the now ubiquitous 18mp sensor in the 7D. Maybe they will use this model to introduce another sensor that five years time will make it to the cheapest dslr. 

Just a thought; was the Sony Exmor first implemented as a APS size sensor ?


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 15, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> The Nikon D800 (and I think D300s) have the same internal build quality as the 1D/D4 type cameras, aside from the improved sealing.



What's your source for this information ?


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 15, 2014)

For the sake of personal experience I own both a 7D and a 6D. I love both for their respective uses. My 7D crop is great with my 70-200 IS II for daylight sports at low to mid ISOs. Beyond 800 the 7D gets noisy unless you really push a stop or so. The 6D is fabulous for portraiture. I don't really give a damn that it only has a single cross-type AF point and only 10 others. I can focus and recompose as needed, even with tight 1.4 apertures on my Sigma ARt 35 and 50mm lenses. Takes some getting used to. Would I rather have 19 on the 6D with all cross type? Sure. Do I think Canon could have done this easily for an extra 100-200 bucks. Yeah. But I'm not complaining too much. 

I'm anxious for the 7DX (my guess at the title, because I like hoe Canon named the compact G1X). I'm hoping this means that all their flagship models in each of the three main lines will carry that X brand. Compact. APS-C. Full Frame. So Canon 7DX is my guess. 

The Wifi on the 6D is not all that great. I never use GPS. I won't miss it on the 7DX. Better video with a more "Magic Lantern" type control built in would be great though.

Price points at over 3k?! Suicide. Abject suicide. Who is going to buy a crop priced the same a 5D3? The crop factor itself is useful, sure, but the market would be so small Canon would almost certainly lose money long term. I think we will see a $2200 7DX street price. I can see a top level crop competing with an "entry" Full Frame (6D) but no way an upper level one. Canon needs to knock this out the park and in 2015 bring out the 1DX II at $6500 again.


----------



## AvTvM (Aug 15, 2014)

"Serious" videographers should not clamor for freaking video-optimized crap in stills cameras, especially not in DSLRS with a mirror in the lightpath. They should go buy a panasonic GH4 if they are poor or a Sony A7S if they want "full frame/shallow DOF" or a canon C-something if they want a video-optimized camera or if they really dont mind the mirror and want FF plus 4k, then a canon EOS 1D-C ... if they are not so poor. An APS-C DSLR is by its very nature the least suitable video-recording device. So stay away from it. 

I hope the 7D successor comes without any video-recording capabilities whatsoever. A lean and mean STILLS machine.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 15, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> I'm anxious for the 7DX (my guess at the title, because I like hoe Canon named the compact G1X). I'm hoping this means that all their flagship models in each of the three main lines will carry that X brand. Compact. APS-C. Full Frame. So Canon 7DX is my guess.



That makes sense. Calling it 7DX is my guess, too -- especially with all the comparisons to 1D (top plate, build quality, etc.).



PureClassA said:


> Price points at over 3k?! Suicide. Abject suicide. Who is going to buy a crop priced the same a 5D3? The crop factor itself is useful, sure, but the market would be so small Canon would almost certainly lose money long term. I think we will see a $2200 7DX street price. I can see a top level crop competing with an "entry" Full Frame (6D) but no way an upper level one. Canon needs to knock this out the park and in 2015 bring out the 1DX II at $6500 again.



Agreed. Everyone was bracing themselves for a 70D price that was high, but we were all pleasantly surprised when it was released with MSRP of $1,199. I picked mine up for $1,049 just a couple months later. The price even dropped to around $949-999 during the holidays. My guess for the 7DX is $2,199. That's a huge leap over the 70D but not so much that it would compete with the 5DIII.

Oh, and I'm anxious to find out about the new sensor!


----------



## HoodlessShooter (Aug 15, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> I'm anxious for the 7DX (my guess at the title, because I like hoe Canon named the compact G1X). I'm hoping this means that all their flagship models in each of the three main lines will carry that X brand. Compact. APS-C. Full Frame. So Canon 7DX is my guess.



I am putting my money on 10D X.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 15, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> "Serious" videographers should not clamor for freaking video-optimized crap in stills cameras with a mirror in zhe lightpath. They should go buy a panasonic GH4 if they are poor or a Sony A7S if they want "full frame/shallow DOF" or a canon C-something if they want a video-optimized camera or if they really dont mind the mirror and want FF plus 4k, then a canon EOS 1D-C ... if they are not so poor. An APS-C DSLR is by its very nature the least suitable video-recording device. So stay away from it.
> 
> I hope the 7D successor comes without any video-recording capabilities whatsoever. A lean and mean STILLS machine.




Video won't make or break it for me. I agree with you. But I know a lot of folks who want video features nowadays. It's the prosumer who wants a nice still camera but with a video capability at least better than a Handycam with a much nicer lineup of great glass to strap to it


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 15, 2014)

Yeah, never understood why people expected a 70D to have some stratosperic price. It was never intended to replace a 7D. It was more to replace the 60D. The 70D needed to be that price to compete directly with the Nikon 7100. 

So far as the 7D goes, I don't think it will be a 10X. I think Canon sticks with it's single digit nomenclature since it's meant to be held aloft with their high end models. Hence 7DX


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 15, 2014)

Multi layered sensor sounds tantalizing - perhaps a foveon style sensor but after thinking some time about it ... three layers of 20 MPix with a frame rate of 12 pictures per second or more, would need a Digic 9++ or similar.

What about a multi layer sensor which increases full well capacity allowing for higher dynamic range? I am not shure if it is hardly needed to go above 11 or 12 EV dynamic range. But with the increasing availability of larger OLED displays we will see display solutions which have 14 or 16 bit (EV) dynamic range. If the coming beast will last 5 years in the market (like the current 7D) it might be a good idea to make it future proof.


----------



## jrista (Aug 15, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>This is a small rundown of what we know and can publish about the EOS 7D Mark II (If that’s what it’s called).</p>
> <ul>
> <li>Full metal body (EOS-1 build quality)</li>
> <li>EOS-1 style top plate</li>
> ...



Hmm...dunno about the bolded ones. Let's assume Canon does move to a multi-layer sensor, and that the megapixel counts we've heard in the past are true. That puts the total photodiode count at 24*3 (if it's a three-layer sensor), or 24*5 (if it's their new five-layer sensor design, with the additional layers for dealing with facial spots and the like...I think this is unlikely, the five-layer sensor sounds like a studio camera thing, so would probably find it's way into the bigMP FF camera.) At 24*3, the total readable photodiode count (excluding DPAF) would be 72 million. If you factor in DPAF, that becomes 144 million. 

Now, throw in the frame rate. At 14-bit, 72 million photodiodes is a total of 126megs of data PER FRAME. Actually, if we assume an increase of 7-10% in the pixel count for the masked border pixels, were actually talking about 77-79 million photodiodes, which comes out to 138.6meg of data PER FRAME. When we factor in a frame rate of 12fps, throw in some overhead, were talking about at least 1.7GB/s data throughput. Double that, for DPAF, and were talking about nearly 3.5GB/s data throughput for an AF read. 

Dunno...the 1D X with dual DIGIC5+ gets 500MB/s data throughput in total. For Canon to jump from 500MB/s to 3.5GB/s in two years...seems far fetched to me. 

So that means one of a few things. First, the "total" photodiode count could be around 24 million, which really means the sensor is a mere EIGHT MEGAPIXELS!! That's it! A measly 8mp! I have a hard time believing that, it doesn't make any sense. I think Sigma has done a grave disservice to Foveon by trying to upsell it as something it's not with their ludicrous megapixel counts...they have a 46megaphotodiode sensor in a 15megapixel camera. I at least hope Canon wouldn't stoop to the same misleading marketing for their own layered sensor. 

So, if the camera isn't a measly 8mp APS-C sensor, then something else has to give. I could see Canon jumping from 500MB/s throughoput to ~1.5GB/s throughput. That seems more reasonable to me. In that case, I don't see DPAF being included, and the sensor megapixel count would probably be a little lower than 24mp. 

The third option is simply that the sensor is NOT a layered sensor. The most likely option is that the sensor is 24mp bayer, with some kind of new and improved, more advanced, more accurate DPAF system that is tied into the same central AF logic that drives the lens from the dedicated PDAF unit (as per the recent patent that was posted here on CR.) That would be an improvement, it would certainly support 12fps (or more), although with DPAF, 12fps requires double the throughput. This still seems like the most likely option, though.

Still no information on whether Canon has moved to a better fabrication process, so who knows there.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 15, 2014)

If this rumor spec is true, I can't wait what Canon has to offer on 5D 4 & 1Dx II :


----------



## Etienne (Aug 15, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> "Serious" videographers should not clamor for freaking video-optimized crap in stills cameras, especially not in DSLRS with a mirror in the lightpath. They should go buy a panasonic GH4 if they are poor or a Sony A7S if they want "full frame/shallow DOF" or a canon C-something if they want a video-optimized camera or if they really dont mind the mirror and want FF plus 4k, then a canon EOS 1D-C ... if they are not so poor. An APS-C DSLR is by its very nature the least suitable video-recording device. So stay away from it.
> 
> I hope the 7D successor comes without any video-recording capabilities whatsoever. A lean and mean STILLS machine.



Oh puhlease ... that battle is so dead. Video is here to stay in DSLR's, and most of us are happy to have both. As has been said a bajillion times: if you don't like video, don't use it.


----------



## jrista (Aug 15, 2014)

Etienne said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > "Serious" videographers should not clamor for freaking video-optimized crap in stills cameras, especially not in DSLRS with a mirror in the lightpath. They should go buy a panasonic GH4 if they are poor or a Sony A7S if they want "full frame/shallow DOF" or a canon C-something if they want a video-optimized camera or if they really dont mind the mirror and want FF plus 4k, then a canon EOS 1D-C ... if they are not so poor. An APS-C DSLR is by its very nature the least suitable video-recording device. So stay away from it.
> ...



I agree. The "mirror in the lightpath" comment is laughable, too...the mirror flips up and stays up when your doing any video recording, so there is no "mirror in the light path" when your actually recording video. Etienne is absolutely right. DSLR Video is now an endemic feature, it's everywhere, it's been here for a long time, and it isn't going anywhere. I don't use it much, but I have used it on occasion, and if I don't want to use it...I simply don't have to. The video features don't get in the way of doing still photography. 

The only complaint I have is that it seems Canon has focused far more on video features lately than overall IQ features. That bugs me, but it really isn't fundamentally an argument against video in DSLRs. It's just an argument against the amount of effort Canon is putting into video-specific features (like DPAF) instead of working on improving IQ in every way possible (which is what their competitors are doing...and whether it's changed the marketscape yet or not, it is CERTAINLY causing people to look elsewhere other than Canon for better IQ.)


----------



## SPL (Aug 15, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> I hope the 7D successor comes without any video-recording capabilities whatsoever. A lean and mean STILLS machine.


+1,..I agree. I know a lot of users are wanting some video improvements/specs,…but I would like to see improved IQ for stills. Over the past 7-8 years I haven’t used video at all,…that’s just me. I had a 7D and sold it. It was a light hungry body and noisy as the ISOs were pushed. I loved everything else about it though. I’m very interested what come out!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > The Nikon D800 (and I think D300s) have the same internal build quality as the 1D/D4 type cameras, aside from the improved sealing.
> ...



I'm curious as well...

It probably also depends on how you define 'build quality'. Most of the higher end bodies have a magnesium alloy chassis and a polycarbonate shell. I believe what distinguishes the 1-series bodies, aside from materials, are tighter manufacturing tolerances.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 15, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> If this rumor spec is true, I can't wait what Canon has to offer on 5D 4 & 1Dx II :



Canon 1DX II will have Quad DIGIC 17+ CPUs with 50 FPS on a 10 layer 100MP FF sensor. Infinite triple cross point * Auto Focus with Retina control like the old Elan 7E I still have. Video Recording at SD, HD, 4k, 8k, and Hologram HD with full 13.3 surround sound. Will come with three bags of French Roast but will not include coffee filters. Automatic ass wiper optional as is the interchangeable Medium Format sensor for an extra $15,000

MSRP $Your House and First Born


----------



## Tugela (Aug 15, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> bseitz234 said:
> 
> 
> > candyman said:
> ...



Except that the 1DX (and 5D4) will be coming out in Q1 of 2015. So using the old 1DX features as a guide for pricing is probably going to lead you down the wrong path.


----------



## Tugela (Aug 15, 2014)

roxics said:


> I don't want to hear anything else until it includes 4K internal video recording, less moire and a headphone jack. Among other things.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned (and I'm going to sound like a jerk to some people by saying this) photo featues don't need anymore improvement. We've had awesome stills cameras for the last five years and if you can't take a good picture with one of those than you suck as a photographer. It is video functionality that Canon is seriously lacking behind on compared to its competitors.
> 
> The original 7D was the first of the Canon cames to features it's now standard video functionality that made its way into every other Canon camera. I expect the 7DmkII to usher in the new standard for Canon video functionality.



Yup. If it doesn't have 4K video and video friendly tools I won't be getting one, since I am perfectly happy with the stills my current DSLR produces. I want a camera that performs all my imaging needs with a high level of capability. Any high end camera that does not have 4K capability is a Dodo IMO.


----------



## dstppy (Aug 15, 2014)

I'm gonna stab a guess and say it's going to be $2799 MSRP

Followed by 8-10 threads of "7Dmk2 or 5Dmk3, help me decide!"


----------



## candyman (Aug 15, 2014)

dstppy said:


> I'm gonna stab a guess and say it's going to be $2799 MSRP
> 
> *Followed by 8-10 threads of "7Dmk2 or 5Dmk3, help me decide!" *




Fllowed by 8-10 threads "why is the 7D mk2 so expensive?" ;D


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 15, 2014)

I think the next thing you see is a price drop in the 1DX. Maybe 5k normal street price. Maybe a bit less. Within 3-6 months.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 15, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > The Nikon D800 (and I think D300s) have the same internal build quality as the 1D/D4 type cameras, aside from the improved sealing.
> ...



There was a discussion about this on FM recently. The D800, and I believe the D300s as well but I'm taking other people's word on this one, has a full magnesium skeleton and mirror box similar to the 1D/D4 series.







The 5D series, however, has a stainless steel chassis with a composite mirror box as shown by Roger Cicala for the 5D3 or the 5D technician service manual that's floating around.






Not that this actually means better or worse as there are reports on FM of the D800 being more susceptible to fall damage than the 5Ds.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 15, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > raptor3x said:
> ...



I don't know anything about how the tolerances vary between bodies or brands so I can't really speak to that. What I can say though, is out of all the cameras that I've owned/borrowed/rented if I had to beat someone to death I'd reach for a 1DX or maybe 1D2n before anything else.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 15, 2014)

candyman said:


> dstppy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm gonna stab a guess and say it's going to be $2799 MSRP
> ...




If it doesn't street for close to $2000, I think it's a wounded duck for Canon sales. If Canon does try to pop early adopters over $2500, I dont think it lasts very long. They need to have this puppy moving by Black Friday. $1999 street prices.


----------



## dolina (Aug 15, 2014)

WTF? No Wi-Fi?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> The 5D series, however, has a stainless steel chassis...



So Canon's own image on the Canon USA page for the 5DIII is just a flat out lie?


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 15, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D series, however, has a stainless steel chassis...
> ...



Not a lie, but it's showing the magnesium shell. That shell is attached to a composite/stainless steel skeleton whereas the Nikon has a magnesium skeleton throughout. The lens mount, for example, is mounted to the composite mirror box. My suspicion is that the shell is largely structural, especially around the mount area as there's a lip on the lens mount that mates with the magnesium shell, but I don't have any good way to demonstrate that without taking my 5D3 apart. If you read Roger's article you can see how it's all put together.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Aug 15, 2014)

Marauder said:


> justawriter said:
> 
> 
> > I'll be waiting on this one, not because of specs, but because my finances dictate that I won't be replacing my 7D until early 2016. I should be up to 110K exposures by then, which seems like a good point to make it may backup body. Who knows, maybe by that time Canon will have come out with a 50MP camera with a built in coffeemaker and a unicorn for $500. ;D
> ...



If it comes with a unicorn OR rainbow flavored popcorn, I would be ready to pay up to 3500$. Otherwise, I'll stick to my 60D.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 15, 2014)

Found a picture of the insides of the D300. Same full metal skeleton as the D800/1D/D4 so I don't really think this kind of build quality can be that expensive to produce.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 15, 2014)

"New sensor technology (multi layer)
12fps shooting (or faster)
Dual Pixel AF
New AF system"

Holy moly!!!!

Wow, sounds like the engineers escaped the basement closet and managed to lock the marketing droids in there and turn the tables.

Wow, this sounds potentially pretty amazing. Assuming some of the details did not get lost in translation.

This also sounds like pretty huge leaks to me, even bigger than recent leaks for other bodies though, so I don't see how this is clamping down on leaks???

Almost all the other rumors had hinted that multi-layer or IQ stuff might not fully hit until the 5D4.
I just hope they can pull off multi-layer sensor. I have to imagine they couldn't dream of making this sort of body poor at high ISO. Wow, have they solved all of Fuji's issues? Might it deliver single layer high ISO quality, proper color under all lighting and did they also include new on-chip ADC for exmor shadows??? Or is it some weird mess since multi-layer sensor have all so far been so heavily compromised this would take a shocking level of breakthrough (but why force a weird mess out for no reason? and maybe this is why they reused the old sensors for a while, didn't feel like the expense of bothering with something intermediate and were just waiting for this ground-breaking change?).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 15, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> hmm would a multi-layer sensor AND dual pixel make sense together?



Why not?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 15, 2014)

IMG_0001 said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > justawriter said:
> ...


and then a thread will start about how Canon's rainbow popcorn does not have the same DR as Nikon rainbow popcorn and another thread about how it does not match the Adobe colourspace...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 15, 2014)

ScottyP said:


> We’re also told, that just like the EOS 5D Mark III launch. This camera should be available pretty soon after the announcement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Way before Christmas. The 5D2 was out for Thanksgiving and it sounds like this is coming earlier.

It could mean in time for Fall sports and Fall migration (at least the latter part of) and so on like how the 40D got announced and was out by early mid-Sept!!
Since announcement sounds like 1st week of September.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 15, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> :-\ hmm, if these specs are true, it does not sound exciting.



sarcasm?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 15, 2014)

dolina said:


> WTF? No Wi-Fi?



Don't worry.... it's all rumours anyway. The truth is that nobody knows anything about the specs and that the rumours are all guesses. 

Until it appears on the Canon Website or is officially announced by Canon, it means nothing.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 15, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



And you stuck with 20D, Xti and 5D???


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 15, 2014)

roxics said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > The 5DII was the first Canon DSLR to feature video, and it was THE camera that kick-started the DSLR video craze.
> ...



7D left out all the stuff like focus peaking and so on and didn't get ML until reallllly late in the game and it not among the best for video IQ either

5D3 with ML RAW finally delivered good video quality


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 15, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Although video is not my "thing," and I don't agree (at all!) with the assessment that stills cameras cannot benefit from technological improvements, I do appreciate the videographers' desire for new features for their needs. Not much has been said about the 7D II in terms of video lately, so it's a huge question mark. That being said the fact that the new sensor is DPAF is certainly a benefit to AF in video, but I'm a bit surprised at the lack of a touch-screen, given how useful it is for rack focussing the 70D's DPAF video.
> 
> For myself, not really being into video much (use it sparingly) and I've always tended to use "Quick" focus for live-view shooting, the absence of a touch screen is a surprise, but it was never more than a tertiary feature for my usage. Do our video enthusiast members have any input on this news? If I was into video, I think the absence of a touch screen to change focus would be a big deal and I'm wondering if this is disquieting news for the video crowd?



Maybe that is how they will give it these mad specs and yet not price it through the moon?
The 1DX2 will have these mad specs and more plus 4k video and 1080p RAW and so on and cost $$$$ and the 5D4 will have great specs but maybe say 6fps plus 4k video and 1080p RAW and 7D2 will have the mad stills specs but lesser video? Hard to say, one half the rumors that seemed potentially believable said that 7D2 would be mega for video and upgrade that more than stills and the other half hinted that the 5D4 would introduce 4k and such. Or maybe this will do it all? And the talk about not revealing specs, although it seems like a TON was revealed up above, is because they are holding back all teh video goodies talk for a big final splash at Photokina?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 15, 2014)

Marauder said:


> cosmopotter said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget that earlier reports mentioned the new sensor technology would be applied to other products following this release. It is likely that the 5D Mk IV and maybe a new EOS-1 will follow this release to add the new goodies. The leapfrog effect happens often just as many of the features of the 70D leapfrogged over the 7D (not all features). The 7D replacement is first and afterall, why mess with your top cameras. Make sure it works on the 7D before you mess with the 5D and 1D. Makes sense to me.
> ...



Yes and no. My 5D2 center point was perhaps a smidgeon more precise than the 7D center point and when using center point and hidden assists I felt it actually often did better than the 7D for soccer (which at times struggled as badly as 50D, 7D also had the annoyance than one point was kinda small and yet the assists were so large it became too grabby too; although for surfing, for some reason, I found the 7D AF to be superb, at least as good as my 5D3, sometimes I wonder if not a trace better, granted so many settings on 5D3 I may not have had the perfect dial-in for that sport). Now outer points sure the 7D blew the 5D2 away.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 15, 2014)

Ale said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Wow...this is huge if Canon can do what Foveon/Sigma could not (build a multi-layer sensor with good color separation and low noise at high ISO).
> ...



Not at all. Look at how harsh some of the AA-less Foveon cameras look. So long as the pixel pitch isn't high enough you get aliasing, you don't need Bayer for that. You automatically avoid color moire that is true, but it does nothing at all whatsoever to get rid of regular aliasing (and since the RAW algorithms don't blend as much that just adds to it).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 15, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> "Serious" videographers should not clamor for freaking video-optimized crap in stills cameras, especially not in DSLRS with a mirror in the lightpath. They should go buy a panasonic GH4 if they are poor or a Sony A7S if they want "full frame/shallow DOF" or a canon C-something if they want a video-optimized camera or if they really dont mind the mirror and want FF plus 4k, then a canon EOS 1D-C ... if they are not so poor. An APS-C DSLR is by its very nature the least suitable video-recording device. So stay away from it.
> 
> I hope the 7D successor comes without any video-recording capabilities whatsoever. A lean and mean STILLS machine.



bah and video drove a ton of 5D2 sales


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <p>This is a small rundown of what we know and can publish about the EOS 7D Mark II (If that’s what it’s called).</p>
> ...



The 5 layer thing sounded more like a P&S thing not even a studio cam so I really doubt it has that, no way.
Maybe it stays 18MP, then it needs to process images and get them through the cameras early stages 3x more quickly. 7D came out, what like half a decade ago? A 3x speed increase would not be unheard of for this level of chips to have improved in half a decade, although it might be slightly more aggressive than things had been progressing.


----------



## whothafunk (Aug 15, 2014)

haven't read the whole topic, just few first pages, but are you people really believing this rumour? its a rumour, yet you are treating it as a fact.


----------



## Tugela (Aug 15, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Although video is not my "thing," and I don't agree (at all!) with the assessment that stills cameras cannot benefit from technological improvements, I do appreciate the videographers' desire for new features for their needs. Not much has been said about the 7D II in terms of video lately, so it's a huge question mark. That being said the fact that the new sensor is DPAF is certainly a benefit to AF in video, but I'm a bit surprised at the lack of a touch-screen, given how useful it is for rack focussing the 70D's DPAF video.
> ...



The sensor size on a 7D is more suited for video than that on the 5D, so it makes more sense to include video-centric functions on the former than the latter. The market differentiation should be: still priority - get a 5D; video priority - get a 7D; with both cameras delivering very high quality in either imaging style.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 15, 2014)

whothafunk said:


> haven't read the whole topic, just few first pages, but are you people really believing this rumour? its a rumour, yet you are treating it as a fact.



"We’re getting little bits of information, and what we’re getting is going to be true."


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 15, 2014)

I took the "(multi layer)" bit in brackets to suggest a possible theory. I'm sure how plausible it is with 24MP. I think the general consensus appears to be a high desire for better dynamic range, higher resolution, markedly better performance in low light / High ISOs.

If Canon can accomplish this with a Ritz Cracker, I don't think anyone will care what the specificity of the sensor is


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 15, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > raptor3x said:
> ...



I think your premise here is that the Nikon has the lens mount fitted to the outer shell whereas the Canon has it fitted to the internal chassis. I bet there is a reason for Canon to fix it to the chassis, possibly accuracy, after all the sensor is fitted to the chassis, not the outer shell. I would very much doubt that a D800 is built 'internally' to the same standard as a 4D, and my experience with the Nikon 'prosumer' grade of camera is that they are not inherently built to the same standard as the equivalent Canon, in fact I'm fairy convinced they are a cheaper unit, and the mount affixed directly to the chassis may be part of this. 

The 7D was quite a surprise in that it was a significant upgrade in build from the 5DII ( if you ignore the hideous plastic pop up flash). The 5DIII redressed the balance being closer to the 1D series with only a relatively small increase in cost, so it will be interesting to see how much further the 7DII takes the build quality forward.


----------



## schmidtfilme (Aug 15, 2014)

I am still wishing for a hybrid viewfinder. What I mean is a viewfinder that can be used for video... I guess only few people care.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> Not a lie, but it's showing the magnesium shell. That shell is attached to a composite/stainless steel skeleton whereas the Nikon has a magnesium skeleton throughout. The lens mount, for example, is mounted to the composite mirror box. My suspicion is that the shell is largely structural, especially around the mount area as there's a lip on the lens mount that mates with the magnesium shell, but I don't have any good way to demonstrate that without taking my 5D3 apart. If you read Roger's article you can see how it's all put together.



Roger doesn't seem to say anything about it, that I can tell. A reader comment suggested the mirror box was composite, Roger indicated the circuit boards were screwed into composite, but there could be metal under it. The words 'magnesium' or 'steel' aren't used on the blog page. 

It's interesting that the Canon mag-alloy frames seem more tightly constructed, using fewer pieces (at least, that's how it appears). 

In other images of the 5DIII chassis, the 'mag allow shell over steel skeleton' isn't apparent, although it does seem the 5DIII's bottom plate may be steel (it's a different finish than the rest of the frame, at any rate).

So, I'm still not sure where you're getting this information... ???


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 15, 2014)

schmidtfilme said:


> I am still wishing for a hybrid viewfinder. What I mean is a viewfinder that can be used for video... I guess only few people care.



I just dont see how it's possible. You have to lock the mirror up to shoot. Only way to do it is mirrorless.


----------



## schmidtfilme (Aug 15, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> schmidtfilme said:
> 
> 
> > I am still wishing for a hybrid viewfinder. What I mean is a viewfinder that can be used for video... I guess only few people care.
> ...



Right, you would need an OLED screen mounted in a way that if turned on when the mirror is away it could get its light through the viewfinder. I should try to patent this idea.

Btw - all the people saying the photography portion cannot be improved. I disagree. I think the dynamic range could still get an improvement. You know dark areas and bright sky. Way to go in this regard.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 15, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> I think your premise here is that the Nikon has the lens mount fitted to the outer shell



Not quite. The nikon mount seems to be connected directly to the internal magnesium chassis, while the Canon mount is connected directly to the composite mirrorbox which is then connected to the stainless steel chassis. Neither are directly connected to the outer shell, although my suspicion is that the outer shell on the Canon is giving some structural support to the lens mount based on the lip from the lens mount that sits flush against the magnesium shell.



Sporgon said:


> whereas the Canon has it fitted to the internal chassis. I bet there is a reason for Canon to fix it to the chassis, possibly accuracy, after all the sensor is fitted to the chassis, not the outer shell. I would very much doubt that a D800 is built 'internally' to the same standard as a 4D, and my experience with the Nikon 'prosumer' grade of camera is that they are not inherently built to the same standard as the equivalent Canon, in fact I'm fairy convinced they are a cheaper unit, and the mount affixed directly to the chassis may be part of this.



Whether it's better or worse is really something that only their structural engineers can really tell you, as there can be very real advantages to composite parts (precision, toughness, thermal stability) other than manufacturing cost. As for them not being up to the same standard, I can believe that the internal sealing is probably superior on the more expensive bodies I'm not sure that the internal construction methods used will be all that different on the Nikon side. On the Canon side, the 1D bodies look  similar to the D800 internally so an increase in build quality for the 7D would probably involve using a more unibody like construction for the internal chassis and/or better weather sealing.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 15, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > Not a lie, but it's showing the magnesium shell. That shell is attached to a composite/stainless steel skeleton whereas the Nikon has a magnesium skeleton throughout. The lens mount, for example, is mounted to the composite mirror box. My suspicion is that the shell is largely structural, especially around the mount area as there's a lip on the lens mount that mates with the magnesium shell, but I don't have any good way to demonstrate that without taking my 5D3 apart. If you read Roger's article you can see how it's all put together.
> ...



That's coming from the 5D service manual.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 15, 2014)

schmidtfilme said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > schmidtfilme said:
> ...



Million Dollar Idea  And I agree, there can always be improvement. If there was no improvement on 20 something MP, then no one would buy the Nikon 800 and 810. If this delivers a 1DX type performance package in a crop, it's a big win. Regardless, it still wont replace a full frame, nor is it meant to. The closer this $2000 7DX is to the 1DX the further away the NEXT 1DX (mark II?) will be to its current model, which would be even better. 

Also why I surmise if/when this all pans out as we are posturing that we will soon after see a not so insignificant price drop in the 1DX itself in anticipation of the real bad boy Canon is holding its engineers at the business end of Katana to keep quiet about.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 15, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> although it does seem the 5DIII's bottom plate may be steel (it's a different finish than the rest of the frame, at any rate).



The 5DIII's bottom plate is stainless steel. This is precisely the sort of hidden quality touch you have from Canon. ( Look at the bottom of cameras that have had extensive pro use from guys who really just treat their gear as a tool and probably haven't paid for it themselves). Stainless steel will be _much_ more expensive to mould and fit than an alloy. Judging by the rumours I guess the 7DII may have one too.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 15, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> whothafunk said:
> 
> 
> > haven't read the whole topic, just few first pages, but are you people really believing this rumour? its a rumour, yet you are treating it as a fact.
> ...


I also believe in Santa Claus


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 15, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I think your premise here is that the Nikon has the lens mount fitted to the outer shell
> ...



According to the german brochure of EOS 5D Mark III
( www.brochures.canon-europe.com/getFile.php?productid=8594&languageid=6 page 18):
WARNING: german -> english (hopefully) made by a non-native speaker 

"Gehäuseoberseite, Rück- und Frontabdeckung
der EOS 5D Mark III sind aus
einer robusten und leichten Magnesium-
legierung gefertigt."
=> Top plate, back plate and front part of the EOS 5D Mark IIIare made from a robust and light magnesium alloy.

"Die Stahl-Bodenplatte
der Kamera wurde für den harten Alltag
des Profis ausgelegt."
=> The bottom plate (?) made of steel is optimized for professional use.

"Innen wird ein Aluminiumchassis
von geformten Kunststoffelementen
geschützt – das schafft ein sicheres
Gefühl von Zuverlässigkeit."
=> Inside an aluminum chassis is protected by moulded elements made from
plastic - this gives a feeling of reliability.
I think your conclusions are right, that the EF mount is mounted via a plastic (of high quality) to the inner frame - just change from steel to aluminum for the inner frame. As I remember the EOS 20D has a steel frame - perhaps steel applies to the 5D mark I ?



The second red part of your comment:
WARNING: I am no engineer just a physicist. But basically you are right: Putting the mount, the outer shell and the inner frame with the CMOS sensor together has a strong disadvantage. Each hit against lens or shell accelerates the sensor and AF components directly and transports horrible forces.
A interlayer of plastics which are deformed temporarily decreases acceleration by e.g. a factor of 10 and reduces the forces on components by the same factor.

The plastic components are made from polycarbonate (PC is the acronym which is visible in one of the photos) which is used for bullet proof windows or CD ROMs where high strength and "form stability" is essential. I just would not have problems with a well made PC shell - it absorbs more energy than a magnesium alloy shell during a hit ...


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 15, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> "Innen wird ein Aluminiumchassis
> von geformten Kunststoffelementen
> geschützt – das schafft ein sicheres
> Gefühl von Zuverlässigkeit."
> ...



Great find! And yes, the only camera that I have a service manual for is the original 5D, so I'm not surprised that there are minor changes but that the fundamental construction is the same.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 15, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > whothafunk said:
> ...



Well CR guy would be a bit of a fool to put in that statement though would he not?
He claims these are 100% so what happens in a few weeks when they are all wrong, site's credibility is finally totally blown, that would mean he had nothing at all this time plus claimed a bunch of fake stuff was 100%.
So I will believe in Santa Claus.


----------



## dstppy (Aug 15, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > dstppy said:
> ...



The 5Dmk3 was PROOF they can do exactly that, providing the camera is THAT GOOD.

Don't get me wrong, I think $2800 is too high, I just won't be surprised to see it. Took me 2 years to pick up my 5dMk3, but that's because it was only worth $2500 to me.

If the 7Dmk2 is a lightning fast, crop version of the 5dMK3 as we're speculating, they can set any price below the cost of a new 5dmk3 and people will pay it up front.

If you can hold out 1-2 years (which, if price matters, it's not that hard), then we can snag it for a more reasonable price.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 15, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> schmidtfilme said:
> 
> 
> > I am still wishing for a hybrid viewfinder. What I mean is a viewfinder that can be used for video... I guess only few people care.
> ...


canon has an EVF that goes on the hotshoe - i'd be surprised if you can't use it on the new 7D.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 15, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > whothafunk said:
> ...



Yeah, well--who doesn't?! 8)

But I concur, that bit about "and what we're getting is going to be true" tends to make this rumour likely to pan out. There's no CR#, which is odd, but it sounds like what they've given us has been verified by a trusted source. 

More to the point, it gels with previous rumours:

The sensor has long been rumoured to be a 24 megapixel.
The primary target market is the wildlife/action/sports shooter.
The FPS will be high (initially stated to be 10 fps, but later rumours did up it to 12).
There was a rumour some time ago that the sensor would introduce brand-new cutting edge technology. 
The AF system has always been rumoured to be very advanced and aimed at AI Servo use with a high degree of accuracy, in fitting with the camera's principal target market.

About the only aspects of this rumour that seem a bit "left field" are the lack of wifi and touch screen. Interestingly, none of the previous rumours seemed to touch on either of those features. I think we all just "assumed" that such a high profile and feature laden camera would just "come" with those features as a matter of default. Not that their absence is a huge negative for me, given I've never used wifi in a camera it's not a part of my workflow, and ditto the touch screen. Just surprised me that they may not include them--not a deal breaker for me as a wildlife photographer (although wifi controlling a camera aimed at a nest would be a cool use!), but it's clearly a huge disappointment for the video crowd and they could potentially be a significant segment of the purchasing base. 

Nonetheless, colour me impressed. All the features on my own wish list (superb AF and burst rate in a well built body) are being met, if these specs are accurate--and I suspect they are. Still waiting to see what the new AF system is all about and what the buffer-size will be, but I don't expect to be disappointed. Quite the opposite--I think this camera is going to ROCK!!!!


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 15, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > dstppy said:
> ...



And....we have a winner!


----------



## Marauder (Aug 15, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> IMG_0001 said:
> 
> 
> > Marauder said:
> ...




Mmmmmmmmmmm Rainbow popcorn DRivel! Can't wait! Er....wait....yes I can!  LOL


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 15, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



Just the 20D and 5D. The Rebel is for work, which is not fast action.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 15, 2014)

schmidtfilme said:


> I am still wishing for a hybrid viewfinder. What I mean is a viewfinder that can be used for video... I guess only few people care.



I do.


----------



## RunAndGun (Aug 15, 2014)

schmidtfilme said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > schmidtfilme said:
> ...



Why would it need to get light through the viewfinder? OLED panels are self illuminating. They don't require a backlight source like an LCD panel.

But anyway… I would like to see high quality EVF's on DSLR's. The optical VF's on still cams, even on 5D series and 1D series cameras, are almost microscopic in comparison to what I'm used to on the motion side. I believe my color LCD EVF's on on my VariCam's are 3" panels and the Alphatron on my C300 is 3.5". And the newer OLED EVF's(like on the Sony F/5 and 55 and Panny's new VariCam and the new Zacuto Graticle) could be adapted to stills use(they are less than 1" and are more highly magnified than the larger LCD's and still beautiful) and make everyones life much easier and better. They could even be articulated like we have on the motion side so you wouldn't need an angle finder or have to use the rear panel. Yes, you would have to have power to look through it, but if you haven't used a quality EVF, you don't know what you're missing. I've had 5 series still cams(ii & iii) for almost six years and been shooting TV with EVF's for over 17. I'll take a high quality EVF any day of the week(especially the newer color flat panel tech over our old 1.5"-2" B&W tubes) when I actually need to see and focus(remember, we're focusing everything manually).


----------



## unfocused (Aug 15, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



I'm guessing that for a large segment the deal maker/breaker is going to be the sensor. And, we really don't have anything close to a reliable rumor on that yet.

Instead, there are some crazy-high expectations floating around and there is a segment of the internet population that is expecting a sensor that defies physics. When that doesn't materialize there will be much whining and gnashing of teeth. 

I personally would be very surprised if some major breakthrough in sensor technology is incorporated in the 7DII. In part, because I'm not sure that such a breakthrough technology is even possible. I'm expecting a 24mp sensor with some incremental improvements that place it a little higher on the scale to the 70D sensor. But, I'm not expecting a miracle.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Aug 15, 2014)

Super! 

Basically a mini-1DX. For those who can't afford the big boy. Great specs especially if it has the high frame rate. It might even be better at color reproduction than the 1DX due to the new sensor.

I'm digging the specs and the more pro-oriented mindset of the camera. A 1D-styled top-plate? Excellent. What serious photographer needs a Mode Dial knob? With it's beefier construction, I think this is going to be a great camera for sports and wildlife photographers. If I was one of these types of photographers and not yet a full-time professional, this camera would definitely be on my list. Exciting!

Dual memory card slots would be nice. But I don't think it's going to happen. Not having WiFi in the camera I bet was done for marketing reasons. It's not going to come in a 1D body. Too expensive. 

I think the introductory price of the camera is going to be around $2700 with the street price eventually sinking to about $2200. Which I think is going to be a bargain as you're getting 80-90% of the 1DX performance and capabilities.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 15, 2014)

So some rumour comes out that the camera will have feature X. The rumour gets recirculated on various websites and eventually people start using the recirculated rumour as "proof" that the initial rumour is correct. Someone else repeats the rumour and then it is considered confirmation.

Until it is announced by Canon, I will not believe any rumour.... but it is fun to speculate on what colour the 24Mpixel, binable to 6Mpixel, DPAF, 16bit A/D and 18 stop DR, 12FPS, 4Kvideo, WiFi GPS touchscreen, superior low light to 1DX camera will come in 

(and before anyone attacks those specs... NO, I am NOT serious about them! ..... or maybe I am......)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 15, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...




Hmm I couldn't wait to be rid of those for action work. I mean sure you can get great shots, but it was frustrating that misses were a lot more than when using 1D2n.


----------



## bardamu (Aug 15, 2014)

10 pages of comments in such a short space of time? The anticipation around this camera seems to be almost as great as that preceding the 5D mk iii release. I thought nobody gave a s**t about crop cameras anymore?


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 15, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Just the 20D and 5D. The Rebel is for work, which is not fast action.
> ...



I get hit rates of high 90s for moderate action and mid 90s for very fast action.

And, no, that's not good enough.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 15, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> So some rumour comes out that the camera will have feature X. The rumour gets recirculated on various websites and eventually people start using the recirculated rumour as "proof" that the initial rumour is correct. Someone else repeats the rumour and then it is considered confirmation.
> 
> Until it is announced by Canon, I will not believe any rumour.... but it is fun to speculate on what colour the 24Mpixel, binable to 6Mpixel, DPAF, 16bit A/D and 18 stop DR, 12FPS, 4Kvideo, WiFi GPS touchscreen, superior low light to 1DX camera will come in
> 
> (and before anyone attacks those specs... NO, I am NOT serious about them! ..... or maybe I am......)



But once again CR guy calls those ones CR1 and doesn't say these are WHAT WE KNOW WILL HAPPEN.


----------



## bardamu (Aug 15, 2014)

I expect this to be an excellent camera, but also, to look at it critically, a niche camera. For those needing high-grade AF, high FPS and shooting predominantly with longer lenses, it will be ideal. But the poor state of the EF-S lens line-up will inevitably limit its usefulness as a one-camera-does-all option. Better off with a Fuji, or any FF. The release of the 16-35 f4 does actually help Canon's crop range a little bit, since 26-56mm is a fairly useful zoom range to have with weather sealing.

Having said that, Canon will still sell plenty of them. 10% will have a legitimate need for it, 90% will buy it for the prestige, or out of curiosity. Which is ok.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 15, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > So some rumour comes out that the camera will have feature X. The rumour gets recirculated on various websites and eventually people start using the recirculated rumour as "proof" that the initial rumour is correct. Someone else repeats the rumour and then it is considered confirmation.
> ...


Then why isn't this rumour a CR3? 

We don't know for sure until an official announcement. For all we know, Canon had prototypes out for testing with an incomplete list of features and that these are the people supplying the rumours... For all we know, the CR guy could have one of those incomplete prototypes... the point is, until an official announcement, we don't know.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 16, 2014)

One thought that I originally had but then put aside until someone else brought it up, is that someone may have mixed up multi-level EXPOSURE METERING SENSOR with multi-level IMAGING SENSOR.

The other person looked over all of their multi-level imaging sensor patents and says that they look to be very inefficient for high ISO [and thus very unlikely to be used].

In which case we would be back to Canon still not mentioning a thing about improving imaging sensors at all (other than for AF).

And as Jrista said, driving those pixels would be a bit of a step up.
And Canon already used multi-level exposure metering sensors.

So I fear that this is likely just something that got lost in translation.  (although they did call it NEW sensor tech and since they already use multi-layer for the exposure metering sensor I don't know maybe it is the imaging sensor after all)


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Oh, I'm not holding my breath on the sensor being something that will somehow magically give the APS-C camera full-frame IQ. Although I AM curious as to what the sensor will be like and what improvements it might bring. I'm "hoping" it provides equal to or better IQ than other current APS-C sensors, but time will tell. But for me, the main draw is, and always has been, a much better AF system and faster burst rate, hopefully coupled with a deep buffer. The AF on the 7D gets trashed more than it ought to--I generally do get good results with it--but there is room for improvement! And the 8fps and fairly deep buffer of the 7D are already still impressive, but improvements in that technology will open up opportunities to get even more interesting shots, especially when tied to a truly superb auto focus system.


----------



## jrista (Aug 16, 2014)

unfocused said:


> I'm guessing that for a large segment the deal maker/breaker is going to be the sensor. And, we really don't have anything close to a reliable rumor on that yet.
> 
> Instead, there are some crazy-high expectations floating around and there is a segment of the internet population that is expecting a sensor that defies physics. When that doesn't materialize there will be much whining and gnashing of teeth.



This is probably the truest statement anyone has made about the 7D II so far.  I've tried and tried to demonstrate to everyone, through theory, math, and even some visual examples (of which I clearly need to do more) that an APS-C sized sensor will NEVER perform as well as a FF sensor (all else being equal). The 7D II may close the gap, temporarily, between the 7D line and the 5D line, but it won't overtake the FF in terms of IQ.



unfocused said:


> I personally would be very surprised if some major breakthrough in sensor technology is incorporated in the 7DII. In part, because I'm not sure that such a breakthrough technology is even possible. I'm expecting a 24mp sensor with some incremental improvements that place it a little higher on the scale to the 70D sensor. But, I'm not expecting a miracle.



A breakthrough is possible, given that Sony did it. The problem with Canon sensors is not that they don't have the same DR as Sony sensors. The problem with Canon sensors is some two stops of that DR is being eaten up by high downstream electronic noise. If Canon can either do away with ADC units in the DIGIC processors, and move them onto the sensor die, or find some other way of making the ADC units and downstream amplifiers less noisy, they could have a pretty radical breakthrough.

For me, given that I've dug through the bowels of the internet to find all the sensor patents from Canon that I could, I KNOW that Canon actually HAS the technology to move the ADC onto the sensor die, and make it column-parallel. I am also nearly certain they have already used it once...in the 120mp APS-H sensor that operated at 9.5fps (I honestly don't know how else they could read out such a sensor at such a high rate *unless *they hyperparallelized the ADC units). 

The question in my mind is...why the hell hasn't Canon already employed the technology they HAVE PATENTS FOR, and have had patents for for a while, in the 5D III, 1D X, and 6D? Given that they did not use some of the awesome technology they HAVE already...I agree with your assessment, although for different reasons...I would be surprised if the 7D II gets a major boost in sensor IQ.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> This is probably the truest statement anyone has made about the 7D II so far.  I've tried and tried to demonstrate to everyone, through theory, math, and even some visual examples (of which I clearly need to do more) that an APS-C sized sensor will NEVER perform as well as a FF sensor (all else being equal). The 7D II may close the gap, temporarily, between the 7D line and the 5D line, but it won't overtake the FF in terms of IQ.


and even if there was some new magic technology that allowed the 7D2 to outperform the 5D3, you can bet that the same magic technology would be rushed through development and we would see a 5D4 that restored the FF advantage....


----------



## jrista (Aug 16, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > This is probably the truest statement anyone has made about the 7D II so far.  I've tried and tried to demonstrate to everyone, through theory, math, and even some visual examples (of which I clearly need to do more) that an APS-C sized sensor will NEVER perform as well as a FF sensor (all else being equal). The 7D II may close the gap, temporarily, between the 7D line and the 5D line, but it won't overtake the FF in terms of IQ.
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## brad-man (Aug 16, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > This is probably the truest statement anyone has made about the 7D II so far.  I've tried and tried to demonstrate to everyone, through theory, math, and even some visual examples (of which I clearly need to do more) that an APS-C sized sensor will NEVER perform as well as a FF sensor (all else being equal). The 7D II may close the gap, temporarily, between the 7D line and the 5D line, but it won't overtake the FF in terms of IQ.
> ...



This is my assumption as well. This new sensor will likely indicate the future of the next generation of Canon's SLR sensors. Canon has been relatively stagnant on sensor evolution for too many years, and I feel that their reputation as an innovative camera company is on the line. If half of these specs are true, I can see why this new camera won't be called mark ll. New body style, new sensor, new AF system, new camera. Not a mark ll anything.


----------



## Greenmeenie (Aug 16, 2014)

No wifi or touch screen? Bummer. All future canon prosumer cameras should have BOTH wifi and touch screens IMHO.


----------



## kalieaire (Aug 16, 2014)

TBH, as far as the 7D is concerned, it's supposed to be Canon's best video product. 

No wifi or 4K is a huge deal breaker for me.

I own the Canon 300D, 20D, 5D, 5D2, 5D3, and previously owned a 7D. I use video in my day to day work, but I'm also a Panasonic GH4 owner.

Using the Panasonic GH4 with 4K, Focus Peaking, Wifi, flip out/touch screen, and a host of other very USEFUL features. I really can't take Canon seriously anymore with any of their offerings.

I'll probably stick with Canon for a little bit for stills, but eventually switch back to film for all my photography needs and use the Panasonic or Red cameras for cinema.


----------



## NancyP (Aug 16, 2014)

Why aren't people running a betting pool on this TBA camera's specs? ;D
Well, I for one have been getting my quota of anticipatory pleasure in reading the rumors, whatever the truth may be, and hanging out with fellow Canonistas.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

jrista said:


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



Although expecting it to match the IQ and noise performance of a full frame (or even APS-H) is not reasonable, I do hope that this sensor has the performance to match or exceed other APS-C sensors out there. That, combined with class leading frame-rate, AF system and build will make this an epic camera.


----------



## NancyP (Aug 16, 2014)

Oh, and yes, I think that people have gotten the message that full frame has, other things being equal, more potential for highest image quality. I am not arguing that point.

However, there are plenty of people who will buy a well-rounded action APS-C camera with excellent, but not "medium format killer", image quality. Please review the concept of a tool designed for a specific task. Action shooters want a specialized camera. If they want to shoot high-res landscapes, they know they need a different camera. I have a 6D as a lightweight landscape and general use camera, and want to upgrade my current 60D to a specialized action APS-C camera that I can lift. I am a 115# weakling currently shooting with a 3# lens and aspiring to an f/4 supertele, and 7.5# of lens plus a non-1DX-size camera body seem handholdable, add a 1DX, not so sure about handholding the extra weight even though the higher voltage battery is mighty attractive.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

NancyP said:


> Oh, and yes, I think that people have gotten the message that full frame has, other things being equal, more potential for highest image quality. I am not arguing that point.
> 
> However, there are plenty of people who will buy a well-rounded action APS-C camera with excellent, but not "medium format killer", image quality. Please review the concept of a tool designed for a specific task. Action shooters want a specialized camera. If they want to shoot high-res landscapes, they know they need a different camera. I have a 6D as a lightweight landscape and general use camera, and want to upgrade my current 60D to a specialized action APS-C camera that I can lift. I am a 115# weakling currently shooting with a 3# lens and aspiring to an f/4 supertele, and 7.5# of lens plus a non-1DX-size camera body seem handholdable, add a 1DX, not so sure about handholding the extra weight even though the higher voltage battery is mighty attractive.



Exactly. A 7D II won't touch a 6D or 5D III for landscapes or as a wedding/event camera, but it can be a viable alternative to a 1D series camera for the wildlife/action/sport shooter--especially on a budget. $2000-2500 isn't inexpensive--but it's a good deal less than 5 or 6 grand!!!


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Aug 16, 2014)

No touch-screen? It's sort of nice. But it's really a gee-whiz feature. For people who like using point and shoots. I can change settings much faster and easier without it. And in sports, that's much more critical.

An articulating screen.. Now THAT could be useful in many ways. Even for a pro. But it introduces a major weak point in the construction.. Not worth it for the .01% of the time I would use it.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 16, 2014)

kalieaire said:


> TBH, as far as the 7D is concerned, it's supposed to be Canon's best video product.



This statement surprises me. Ignoring the Canon Cinema DSLRs, I always thought the 5D was supposed to be Canon's top video DSLR. When the 5DII came out it pretty much turned the video world on its head. I've seen a lot of professional videos shot with 5D's, not so many with 7D's. I'm not a video person, but even so, I'd like to know what is the basis for expecting the 7D to be Canon's best video product.


RGomezPhotos said:


> No touch-screen? It's sort of nice. But it's really a gee-whiz feature. For people who like using point and shoots. I can change settings much faster and easier without it. And in sports, that's much more critical.
> 
> An articulating screen.. Now THAT could be useful in many ways...



Funny, I have just the opposite perspective. I doubt I would ever use a tilt screen, but I would love a touch screen that allows me to dig through the menu more quickly and intuitively. I wouldn't use it for simple shooting, but for special situations (changing focus tracking or setting RT flash settings, for example) I think I'd find having a touch screen very handy. 


Marauder said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and yes, I think that people have gotten the message that full frame has, other things being equal, more potential for highest image quality. I am not arguing that point.
> ...



Agreed. I watched Canon release the 5DIII targeted to a very specific audience (wedding/event photographers) while Nikon released its D800 without (in my opinion) adequately reviewing the market. Once the pent-up demand was satisfied, Nikon didn't have anywhere else to go. But, the 5DIII became a "must have" for wedding and event photographers and was still a very desirable camera for all-around users. The sales figures indicate that their strategy worked.

I know I sound like a broken record, but I see the same thing happening with the 7DII. Meet the needs of wildlife/action/sports shooters while offering a very attractive camera for higher-end enthusiasts. I still say, Canon wants us all to buy two bodies and I expect the 5DIII and the 7DII will be a nice combination. 

(And one more reason why I really don't expect to see a 5DIV for at least another year.)


----------



## rpt (Aug 16, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> EOS 1 style top plate = no pop up flash ?


No mode dial? This is a deal breaker!


----------



## rpt (Aug 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> > EOS-1 style top plate
> 
> 
> 
> No mode dial?


Darn it! You beat me to it!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> > EOS-1 style top plate
> 
> 
> 
> No mode dial?



I used to like mode dials, but after the locking ones came out, I hate them. I just can't push that lock button while twisting the dial.

Whatever improvements are made, will hint at the features in the next FF bodies next year. 

We've been hearing rumors of much better color, which comes with layered sensors, and dual pixel with tracking, as in the recent patent, so much of this rings true.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 16, 2014)

rpt said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > > EOS-1 style top plate
> ...



You cant get EOS1 style weather sealing with a mode dial. All buttons underneath a continuous rubber film will seal it from rain and gorilla pee. More to sway my decision toward this being closer to a 1DX than a 7D and hence a loftier price tag.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 16, 2014)

Lots of talk about features and nick-knacks and specs.

Show me the sensor. The rest doesn't matter to me if the sensor is weak.


----------



## Policar (Aug 16, 2014)

kalieaire said:


> TBH, as far as the 7D is concerned, it's supposed to be Canon's best video product.



Funny, I could have sworn it was the C500.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 16, 2014)

Greenmeenie said:


> No wifi or touch screen? Bummer. All future canon prosumer cameras should have BOTH wifi and touch screens IMHO.



I never liked Canon's wifi implementation. I have had great success using an Eye-Fi card when I need that capability. I dont think that built in wifi would be a deal breaker since it can be added later.

Touch screens are very gimmickee on a camera. I've tried to get used to it on the M and while I can see that it makes sense for some things, I find it cumbersome to change settings and need to take my eye's off the subject and dink around with the camera. I prefer to change most of the important settings by feel or program the common ones into custom modes.

I would rather see them put the R&D dollars into better IQ and better AF capability than consumer features like touch screens and wifi that runs the battery down even faster.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 16, 2014)

RGomezPhotos said:


> No touch-screen? It's sort of nice. But it's really a gee-whiz feature. For people who like using point and shoots. I can change settings much faster and easier without it. And in sports, that's much more critical.
> 
> An articulating screen.. Now THAT could be useful in many ways. Even for a pro. But it introduces a major weak point in the construction.. Not worth it for the .01% of the time I would use it.



I think the swivel screen issue is about weather-proofing. It probably happens, but I have yet to see or hear of a broken Canon DSLR swivel screen. There are other advantages to the swivel: you can leave it closed so that the screen is protected. Personally I'd like to see a pro-level body with a swivel screen. If it breaks I'll get it fixed.


----------



## jrista (Aug 16, 2014)

Greenmeenie said:


> No wifi or touch screen? Bummer. All future canon prosumer cameras should have BOTH wifi and touch screens IMHO.



Comments like this make me think people don't know how to use a DSLR. DSLRs are devices that you need to instantly change settings on. You need to be able to dial in exposure on a dime when the light changes. Who in the world, ESPECIALLY pros, want to pull the camera away from their face so they can fiddle with a clunky touch screen? It's sad how smartphone mentality is invading every other area of our lives...in many cases, a touch screen is the primitive configuration device, and all the "archaic old buttons and dials" are actually the vastly superior and far more reliable means of controlling and configuring something like a DSLR (or, for that matter, a remote control, an airplane cockpit, or a nuclear launch facility, or pretty much anything where the behavior of a given doodad has to be EXACT, fixed in behavior and place, reliable, hardened against rough activity, instantaneous, and immune to things like software bugs, viruses, etc.)

Touch screens on consumer devices make sense. Touch screens on professional grade devices designed for use by people who know how to train muscle and procedural memory, and prefer instantaneous access to many features of the camera without the need to look at anything, or remove their eye from the viewfinder...are quite frankly the most confusing "innovation" I can think of.

I'm not necessarily against adding a touch screen, but it is FAR from a dealbreaker if one is not included on the 7D II. Same goes for WiFi. It's not an essential...in the end, it does NOTHING for my _*photography*_. It's just a handy gizmo that MIGHT make data transfer from the camera to the computer easier. To me, the most critical, fundamental, hell _foundational _aspects of the 7D line of cameras are frame rate, AF system, metering and sensor. If *those *things don't add up to a significant upgrade, something like a two-generational update over the 7D I, then I'd be worried.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> Who in the world, ESPECIALLY pros, want to pull the camera away from their face so they can fiddle with a clunky touch screen?



Well, how about pros (or amateurs) who shoot with the 600 EX RT? Or Pros or amateurs who want to change tracking sensitivity or accelerate/decelerate tracking? There are dozens of functions that cannot be adjusted with a camera glued to your face that would be much easier and quicker to accomplish with the swipe of a finger rather than having to work through buttons and joysticks. 

People need to open their minds a bit and quit being such Luddites about technology (especially ironic on a forum filled with gearheads). No one has ever suggested that a touch screen would replace the buttons and joysticks, but it is proven technology that would add significant functionality and convenience to enthusiast and pro-level cameras.


----------



## chasinglight (Aug 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> > EOS-1 style top plate
> 
> 
> 
> No mode dial?



I agree with neuro. If "EOS-1 style top plate" meant no popup flash then they could/would have said "EOS-5 style top plate" or "EOS-6 style top plate" or "no popup flash". Instead it likely means "EOS-1 style top plate _controls_" which plays to the theory that is camera may be aimed more at the 1DIV market than the 7D market.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

unfocused said:


> kalieaire said:
> 
> 
> > TBH, as far as the 7D is concerned, it's supposed to be Canon's best video product.
> ...



Ah, yes a 5D III would be very nice---especially for those times when the light is inadequate for a cropped frame. Now that the prices are dropping it's come into my RADAR---but I want the 7D II more. Still, I just saw someone selling one on Kijiji for only $1590 Canadian--with box and only 3500 clicks. Sadly, it was at the far east end of Ontario, near the Quebec border---nearly a 6 hour drive, so no go. It didn't take long to disappear!!! *sigh*


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> What makes you think _Canon_ (officially) said, "EOS-1 build quality"? Even if they did, 'EOS-1' is a generic statement, not a specific model designation. If this turns out to be a $3999 EOS 1D Mark V, it'll have build quality equivalent to the 1D X. If it's a 7D Mark II, it won't.



Canon's "equivalency" statements don't mean anything. They are purely for marketing and not worth discussing or arguing about. Since no one in this industry performs *and publishes the results of* standardized tests we really have no clue what manufacturer claims translate to in the real world.

If anyone with an engineering background has fully disassembled their 7D and 1DX they might have some input, but still wouldn't be able to tell you whether or not it matters without extensive stress testing.

Does "1N sealing" mean rain for 30, but "1DX sealing" means rain for 45m? Maybe it's 4 and 6 hours? Maybe it's a temperature difference? Only Canon's engineers know what, if any, real differences exist and under what conditions they become apparent.

Outside of a handful of water/shock resistant bodies intended for underwater use and therefore subject to standardized over pressure and drop tests, all we have are user reports. Based on those the 7D seems to be able to handle anything a sane photographer would throw at it, as well as punishment a not so sane photographer might throw at it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCT-YMgjm9k


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 16, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> Greenmeenie said:
> 
> 
> > No wifi or touch screen? Bummer. All future canon prosumer cameras should have BOTH wifi and touch screens IMHO.
> ...



Can you control the camera and use live view over an eyefi card? I have no interest whatsoever in downloading pictures over WiFi.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 16, 2014)

unfocused said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Who in the world, ESPECIALLY pros, want to pull the camera away from their face so they can fiddle with a clunky touch screen?
> ...



A touch screen is great when you aren't shooting stills. When you are, being able to change numerous things on the fly without removing the camera from your face is crucial to getting the shots.

I wouldn't mind a touch screen as long as tactile controls still exist and are well thought out and implemented


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 16, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> Multi layered sensor sounds tantalizing - perhaps a foveon style sensor but after thinking some time about it ... three layers of 20 MPix with a frame rate of 12 pictures per second or more, would need a Digic 9++ or similar.



Page 6 and no one seems to be talking about this until now??? 

An RGB sensor wouldn't necessarily require a ton of processing power. I would think readout off the sensor would be the problem, but once you have the data you don't have to demosiac it. So bandwidth and file size is the issue, not CPU power per se.

I'm surprised to see this on the list of what CR "knows." I've read else where that the 7D2 will not have a multilayer sensor. Time will tell.

I will be pleasantly surprised and eager to see sample files if the 7D2 does indeed have a multilayer sensor. Sigma always struggled at high ISO but Bayer sensors actually throw away a significant fraction of light that an RGB layered sensor should, in theory, capture. If Canon managed to solve whatever problem plagued Foveon at high ISO we may be looking at a very interesting sensor indeed. Foveon always overstated the improvement gained with multiple layers. But a multilayer sensor can resolve more detail for a given number of sensel sites, does not need an AA filter, and can handle some colors that Bayer struggles with.

I've been itching to get a Sony A7 but...I think I'm going to wait to see what Canon is doing here and what they're going to charge for it.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> Dunno...the 1D X with dual DIGIC5+ gets 500MB/s data throughput in total. For Canon to jump from 500MB/s to 3.5GB/s in two years...seems far fetched to me.
> ...
> So, if the camera isn't a measly 8mp APS-C sensor, then something else has to give. I could see Canon jumping from 500MB/s throughoput to ~1.5GB/s throughput. That seems more reasonable to me. In that case, I don't see DPAF being included, and the sensor megapixel count would probably be a little lower than 24mp.



Good points jrista.

If the sensor is RGB and takes full advantage of this in terms of IQ, then I think a lot of people would be fine even with 20 or 18 MP. That sounds backward from a marketing perspective, but this body will be marketed to people who know better then to just look at MP.

I'm guessing it's a Bayer sensor. But the rumors and the timing of the patent announcements do intrigue me.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 16, 2014)

kalieaire said:


> TBH, as far as the 7D is concerned, it's supposed to be Canon's best video product.



No, the 5D3 is.



> No wifi or 4K is a huge deal breaker for me.



A good 4k sure would be nice.




> Using the Panasonic GH4 with 4K, Focus Peaking, Wifi, flip out/touch screen, and a host of other very USEFUL features. I really can't take Canon seriously anymore with any of their offerings.



They did drop the ball with crippling, if it were not for ML they'd already have been packed up by many. ML RAW made the 5D3 pretty amazing though. But yeah they really need to put in the basic usability built-in though so you don't have to wait 8months to reasonably use a camera and even longer to get top IQ out of it.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> I've tried and tried to demonstrate to everyone, through theory, math, and even some visual examples (of which I clearly need to do more) that an APS-C sized sensor will NEVER perform as well as a FF sensor (all else being equal).



If you mean across the entire ISO envelope, you are correct. If you mean at ISOs where noise is a solved problem...then we've already seen this in multiple sensor comparisons.

I do not expect a 7D2 to have high ISO IQ like a 5D3.



> The question in my mind is...why the hell hasn't Canon already employed the technology they HAVE PATENTS FOR, and have had patents for for a while, in the 5D III, 1D X, and 6D?



Chip yields.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> Comments like this make me think people don't know how to use a DSLR. DSLRs are devices that you need to instantly change settings on. You need to be able to dial in exposure on a dime when the light changes. Who in the world, ESPECIALLY pros, want to pull the camera away from their face so they can fiddle with a clunky touch screen?



The touch screen isn't for shutter/aperture. It's for the now hundreds of other settings we have. I can change several things on my M faster then on any DSLR I've handled, including focus point. 

And if Canon tweaked the UI a bit it would be even faster.

For certain things I want physical controls. For the rest...touch screen. (Not that this would be a deal breaker.)


----------



## RGF (Aug 16, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> [
> Can you control the camera and use live view over an eyefi card? I have no interest whatsoever in downloading pictures over WiFi.



wifi has no value to me when I shoot wildlife. in fact, unless I am shooting in a studio I can not image using wifi (I am sure I am missing some uses).

Major interest is the new sensor - multiple layer implies higher effect resolution. but what about DR? Unless Canon thinks that this camera will not be used contrasty subjects (which is not true - back lit wildlife, sports, etc).


----------



## jrista (Aug 16, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Comments like this make me think people don't know how to use a DSLR. DSLRs are devices that you need to instantly change settings on. You need to be able to dial in exposure on a dime when the light changes. Who in the world, ESPECIALLY pros, want to pull the camera away from their face so they can fiddle with a clunky touch screen?
> ...



That does not change the fact that a touchscreen really does nothing for your PHOTOGRAPHY. Personally, I can blaze through Canon's menu system as it is. Both on the 7D and 5D III (and the latter, which has FAR more settings, is still a breeze). Canon's current menu system wouldn't be any faster with a touch screen...in fact, there might be some difficulties using it. Adding swipe might make it functional for touch, but overall, it wouldn't really be any faster or easier. 

They would have to fundamentally change how the menu system works to make it viable for touch...now, how many customers do you think would blow a gasket or erupt like a volcano if Canon did a radical menu system redesign to make, of all things, touch work better? One of the key reasons people stick with the Canon system is the ergonomics, button placement and menu system. I've messed with Nikon's menu system too many times to count now, and it just feels odd, Ironically, it probably isn't all that much different...there is a lot more vertical scrolling, and things often seem difficult to find that just pop out at you on Canon's system. But even those MINOR differences send me crawling for the exits. 

Canon would lose MASSIVE numbers of customers if they screwed around with the fundamental design and function of their menu system to make it touch friendly. It's a staple, a fundamental, a critical part of what keeps their customers coming back for more and ridiculously happy (and a lot of Canon users ARE ridiculously happy...if they weren't, Canon's loss of the sensor IQ crown would have caused a hell of a lot more of them to jump ship and switch to whoever provides the better sensor IQ.)

Sure, it's a nice 'touch'...but a touch UI is probably the absolute farthest thing from an essential improvement that the 7D, 5D IV, and 1D XI really, REALLY need. It would just be icing on the cake, and god only knows at what additional cost.


----------



## schmidtfilme (Aug 16, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > schmidtfilme said:
> ...



That would be a perfect solution as well. Not as good as the hybrid viewfinder thing but pretty close.


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 16, 2014)

Well said.

In the end, specs are great, but how does it really perform in the field? I for one will be watching and won't be an early adopter.

sek



jrista said:


> Greenmeenie said:
> 
> 
> > No wifi or touch screen? Bummer. All future canon prosumer cameras should have BOTH wifi and touch screens IMHO.
> ...


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> That does not change the fact that a touchscreen really does nothing for your PHOTOGRAPHY.



Anything that helps me work faster, easier, or more confidently does something for my photography by letting me focus on what's important.



> Canon's current menu system wouldn't be any faster with a touch screen...



Have you actually used a touch screen Canon?



> They would have to fundamentally change how the menu system works to make it viable for touch...



That's funny because they have multiple models that already use touch with the existing menu system.

Lack of a touch screen is not a deal breaker, but after using it I'm disappointed to hear that it might not be on the 7D2.


----------



## schmidtfilme (Aug 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I own a Canon 100D that already has a touch screen. Works very nice. It is in addition to the old style manual controls.


----------



## daniela (Aug 16, 2014)

Actual Rumors in Japanese chat forums (got infos from an japanese girlfriend:

- 400.000 Yen (>2900€) (variying 300.000-450.000 Y, most rumors on 400.000)
- designed for sports photography. >10 pps, AF speed on miirrorless camera niveau, fast and accurate AF on moving objects (tracking a lot better than actual 7D)
- operationnal design and ergonomy focused on professional use 
- IQ better than 7D, more ISO-range, lesser noise. But IQ/DR is not the main optimization goal ( MK4 5D will be designed as an semiprofessional goldenegglayingwoolmilksaw for an non-professional user)


----------



## adamdoesmovies (Aug 16, 2014)

RGF said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Wildlife seems like a perfect use for WiFi. Being able to control a second camera without being right next to it is amazing. I think it's extremely regressive for all of these photographers to continually say "Well I'll never use it, so it's useless to everyone!" It's been said about GPS, flip screens, video, digital capture, programmable modes, autofocus, and basically every other feature that's ever hit professional cameras. The thing is, every time, they're wrong. Not everyone is a wedding photographer, not everyone only shoots landscapes. Theres tons of capabilities because there are tons of possibilities, and it's disappointing to see today's photographers trying so hard to stifle innovation in the name of a tradition that never seems to have really existed.


----------



## RickWagoner (Aug 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> Greenmeenie said:
> 
> 
> > No wifi or touch screen? Bummer. All future canon prosumer cameras should have BOTH wifi and touch screens IMHO.
> ...





Comments like this remind me what people said about the iPhone vs Blackberry keyboard in 2007. People talked how buttons will always win, no company would ever risk using a Touch Screen. Yet today everyone and their grandparents have one. The military uses ipads. The government uses them. Hospitals and surgeons use them. They're being used as a 16 channel recording studio with an array of different guitar ampheads inside. Pilots use them for guidance flying hundreds of lives on board. As far as being a "professional grade device" vs "Consumer device" A simple iPhone has more engineering, design, flawless production, and tighter spec limits than every DSLR Camera on the market put together. A simple iPhone will make a 1dx look like a toy compared to everything that goes inside from start to finish which would be nowhere close to a professional grade device.
Do you have any idea how much research and design goes into the Gorilla glass screen or how much went into the coating on top that makes it feel not like glass (original iphone users would remember those days). 

" touchscreen really does nothing for your PHOTOGRAPHY."

Oh boy, umm you do understand todays cellphones are destroying the camera market whole. It is not only better cameras in the phones but unlike a majority of Entry level dslrs, people are using the phones to capture everything and anything, people are using them because of the touch screen! The only segment in the camera market that is doing good is the Entry level DSLR, this is why Canon has a bunch of cheap bodies. People want something better than their phone so they just go to DSLR. As far as having nothing to do with YOUR PHOTOGRAPHY, well this is eventually change what products you can buy in the future. If only a few of these people upgrade from entry level bodies to higher end bodies the companies will have to deliver what those people want and what those people are used to. Touch Screen will become standard eventually on every DSLR and even WIFI. 

It is 2014, saying stuff like Touch Screen and WIFI don't matter is like saying a horse and carriage is a professional way of transport vs a consumer device like a car. Everything is all about being intuitive and connected today, from thermostats in our homes to ovens and refrigerators to our health care and military. Touch Screen will always beat buttons on any DSLR in any market for being more intuitive. WIFI and GPS will be standard, actually they should be standard on a DSLR released these days. If the 7Dmark2whatever does not have both you will see an upgraded model in a few years with these features...guaranteed!


----------



## Tugela (Aug 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



It wouldn't change the menu system at all, other than make accessing it faster.

You also have a backward line of thought as to potential utility. Think innovatively instead of regressively. A touch screen is effective for selecting focus/exposure points dynamically, not to mention all the possibilities it opens up when it comes to selecting multiple points to bracket focus ranges or optimize exposure in a scene. It has the potential to greatly expand the creative options for a photographer.

Think of all the possibilities - setting exposure on one point and focusing on another is an example. You can't do that easily with current DSLRs.

For shooting video a touch screen makes image control much easier and more dynamic (critical).


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 16, 2014)

daniela said:


> Actual Rumors in Japanese chat forums (got infos from an japanese girlfriend:
> 
> - 400.000 Yen (>2900€) (variying 300.000-450.000 Y, most rumors on 400.000)
> - designed for sports photography. >10 pps, AF speed on miirrorless camera niveau, fast and accurate AF on moving objects (tracking a lot better than actual 7D)
> ...



This brings me down to earth. Not the price but the statement "IQ/DR is not the main optimization goal".

From this I see a 70D without Wifi, Touch, tilt/swivel display in a ergonomically well equipped package.

I am searching for a 70D sensor/functionality in an EOS 40D package but the 7D ii might head in another direction.

About the discussion:
Wifi or no Wifi
tilt swivel display or fixed display
etc.
Some people have not in mind that a lot of photographers are in the need for a camera with
HIGH image quality
HIGH versatility
HIGH precision
that is able to make 4 or 5 shots per second and
has a PRICING for mortals (max. roughly 2000 $/€)
is LIGHT (below 800 grams)
is APS-C (because you can use good non-Ls and lower priced L lenses)
Please respect that some here are interested in a "goldenegglayingwoolmilksaw" (thanks for that word, daniela) with reasonable IQ or have their individual use scenarios for PHOTOGRAPHY where e.g. Wifi plays a role or the touch screen.

Just one reason for Wifi: After a long walk I tried to take a photograph of a small waterfall with tripod (and camera!). I had to put the tripod on an awkward place and the EOS M had the lens I needed. During trials to see the display I slipped a little bit but was able not to fall down roughy 10 meters. You can survive that but 12 hours pain are guarantied before someone finds you ... no handy network access, no people in reach ... wifi + handy would have been helpful to prevent (moderately) dangerous situations.


----------



## jrista (Aug 16, 2014)

@RickWagner and @Tugela:

You guys are both thinking about things from a smartphone consumer standpoint. This isn't Blackberry vs. iPhone, or Horse-Drawn Carriages vs. Stem Powered Cars. We aren't talking about run of the mill consumer grade devices here...were talking about refined devices meant for a professional, or extreme hobbyist who might as well be a professional. It's why I brought up airplane cockpits in my prior post...people have talked about making airplane cockpits more modern for decades, however they are still built today primarily with individual dials and knobs and levers and switches and readouts (even the highly advanced Dreamliner). Why? Because it isn't some run of the mill consumer device meant to be easy...but potentially inefficient...and therefor accessible to a billion consumers. It's a system meant for professionals, who have the knowledge to use such a complex device, and the expectations that certain bits of functionality exist in certain ways and are accessible by certain means...because it's important, when push comes to shove, that these things work the way they always have. (In the case of an airplane, that could mean life or death for hundreds...in the case of a DSLR, it could mean getting the shot or not.)

Which goes back to my original comment:



jrista said:


> Comments like this make me think people don't know how to use a DSLR. DSLRs are devices that you need to instantly change settings on. ... *It's sad how smartphone mentality is invading every other area of our lives*...in many cases, a touch screen is the primitive configuration device, and all the "archaic old buttons and dials" are actually the vastly superior and far more reliable means of controlling and configuring something like a DSLR (or, for that matter, a remote control, an airplane cockpit, or a nuclear launch facility, or pretty much anything where the behavior of a given doodad has to be EXACT, fixed in behavior and place, reliable, hardened against rough activity, instantaneous, and immune to things like software bugs, viruses, etc.)



Digging through menus is one thing...however, how often do you really do that? I do it periodically, however in the grand scheme of things, once I have my Canon cameras set up for how I use them, I don't spend a lot of time in the menu systems, or for that matter on the quick view screen (the grid that shows up on the back LCD, which shows the current state of your camera...exposure settings, white balance, AF mode, etc.) When I do find myself in them, I've never found the dials or set button to be an encumberance...I can fly through Canon's menu system without even thinking about it. Touch might offer an alternative means, but I truly don't think it would be any faster or better. Just different. And I'd probably keep doing things the same way I have been for years, since it's programmed and automatic...I don't have to think about it. 

I use my camera for photography. In my photography, which primarily involves shooting action (the primary use case for a camera like the 7D II or 1D X, and in many cases even the 5D III), when I'm actually doing photography, I use the buttons and dials. I rarely even remove the camera from my face when I have a subject in view. I use nothing but what is visible in the viewfinder, and basic muscle and procedural memory, to completely reconfigure the camera as needed, from an exposure, white balance, metering, and AF standpoint, for the subject and lighting I'm photographing. THAT is my photography. THAT is what I do with a camera.

Digging around through menu systems, or poking around through the quick access screen, are things I do when I'm NOT actually doing photography. There are a couple other use cases where a touch screen has been useful...but in those cases, it wasn't a touch screen on the camera. When I do macro photography, especially of tiny plants, close to the ground, I often have my camera mounted underneath my tripod. I flip the center post of my Gitzo Mountaineer around, attach the camera upside down, and drop it down low to the ground where I can get photos of things like mushrooms or other interesting forest floor flora...from the perspective of being on the forest floor. Having tried on many occasions, I can readily tell you that the live view screen is usually inaccessible or at the very best very difficult to access. My solution? Plug the camera into my Surface Pro, tether it with Canon's utilities, and use a REAL touch screen, a large touch screen, on a high resolution, 1080p device, to see what my camera is pointing at, adjust composition and focus, etc. For macro photography, I'd much rather have Canon invest some time and money improving their software with more controls, potentially the ability to fully control the camera, including focus, remotely via a tablet and a touch UI like that. It's such a radically superior experience. I also do the same thing for landscape photography. Getting accurate focus with a 10.6" screen is so much easier than on a 3.2" screen. It's like having a large format view camera with a huge 8x10 ground glass screen on the back...it's amazing.

So, sure, touch can be useful. I've never said it couldn't be. I am just saying...it's NOT how a professional or an avid enthusiast uses a DSLR. A pro or an enthusiast uses a DSLR the way a DSLR was DESIGNED to be used...rapidly, eye to the viewfinder, fingers on dials and buttons that instantaneously do what I need them to do without ever having to pull the camera away from my face and go touching my way through any kind of UI. In my world, graphical UIs are the clunky, intrusive, and slow means of giving me access to settings. Dials and buttons, on the other hand, are the cutting edge, giving me instantaneous access to things that I often need to change on a moment's notice, and things I don't want to have to pull my eye away from the viewfinder...and likely lose my subject when I do...to accomplish. Give me more dials and buttons, and I'll always find a way to use them. Ask any serious or professional bird or wildlife photographer, sports photographer, probably most any action photographer, and they will likely tell you the same thing. Why would anyone want to pull the camera away from their face to fiddle with a UI when they are actually doing photography? 

It's a nice to have. It's the glossy polish. It pretties things up and makes them feel more modern. I'm not denying any of this. What I'm saying is, a touch UI is far from an essential necessity on a DSLR, *particularly on a device meant for pros.* (If we were talking about the EOS-M 3 or a Rebel, my stance would be 180 degrees on this.)


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 16, 2014)

unfocused said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Who in the world, ESPECIALLY pros, want to pull the camera away from their face so they can fiddle with a clunky touch screen?
> ...


+1


----------



## jrista (Aug 16, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



You guys are still totally missing the point. I'll keep it simple:

A touch UI is the very LAST thing Canon should be putting effort into for a professional grade DSLR. I don't disagree that it COULD be useful. However, before I wrote my post, I read several comments by people stating that lack of a touch UI was either extremely disappointing or a total deal killer. Personally, I find that to be LUDICROUS!! I mean, of ALL the things to get irate about...not having a touch UI is a deal killer???

This is Canon. This is the company that has taken shit for the last several years because they don't have sensor IQ as good as an Exmor. Where are all the people saying not having a 24mp APS-C sensor capable of 14 stops of DR is a deal killer? Oh, right, they are busy wasting their time complaining about the lack of a touch UI. 

I know you guys all have your dreams about how useful a touch UI could be for some things. That's not my point. My point is...it is by far the least important thing Canon needs to focus on right now as far as the 7D II, or 5D IV, or 1D XI go. Canon needs to improve the things that matter every time you press the shutter button first. Sensor IQ. Metering (and maybe tying in a full high res RGB sensor into the AF system like the 1D X and a ton of Nikon cameras). The PDAF system itself. They can slap on a touch UI later. Hell, they could slap on a tough UI with a freakin firmware update. Touch UI shouldn't be the thing people are whining about being deal breakers...not on the 7D II, not on a professional grade DSLR. 

That's my point.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> [...]
> 
> Touch UI shouldn't be the thing people are whining about being deal breakers...not on the 7D II, not on a professional grade DSLR.
> 
> That's my point.



What is professional? For me the only difference between an amateur and a professional photographer is that the latter one makes money with photos.

Someone told me that the term "amateur" has its roots in "amare" ... to love. Who makes the better photos? The one who loves photography or the one who earns money with taking photos?
There is no definitive answer. It is not excluded that a good professional photographer CAN DO WHAT HE/SHE LOVES TO DO !

Now about the tools: I think both might need the same level of tools - you called it professional DSLR.
For me touch screens are an OPTION which makes setting the focus and exp. metering area very simple (on EOS M). This is very important for me to operate it one handed while securing myself with the other hand.

Let's try to come together: Your argument to add a touch screen optimized menu later via firmware update is a good one. But if the 7Dii has no touch screen, Canon omits that option from the start.
What about using the standard menu but activating direct access to the settings via touch screen without disabling the hardware controls to access the menu settings and change parameters? And a custom function which disables the touch screen for settings and/or image review ...


----------



## kalieaire (Aug 16, 2014)

[quote author=unfocused]

This statement surprises me. Ignoring the Canon Cinema DSLRs, I always thought the 5D was supposed to be Canon's top video DSLR. When the 5DII came out it pretty much turned the video world on its head. I've seen a lot of professional videos shot with 5D's, not so many with 7D's. I'm not a video person, but even so, I'd like to know what is the basis for expecting the 7D to be Canon's best video product.[/quote]

The 5D2 was an experiment when they added video. The 5D2 should've had a better focus sensor first, which was what people were clamoring for since the first 5D release and fun things like Video Second. However, their big experiment paid off and thus came the 7D with more features meant for DSLR Video. It became a quick seller in the Wedding Cinema market, hence why sales have been amazing and why the run has lasted a full 4.5 years.

When the 5D2 initially came out, it didn't even support any standard cinema frame rates (it was initially 30fps not, 29.97 or 23.976 fps aka 24p) and required time-wasting conforming of footage to make it even useful, and in an industry that requires near same day delivery of content, the 5D2 was very immature. But the 7D with its 24p and 60i frame rates made it industry amazing.

To put things into perspective Canon messed up Autofocus with their Mark III 1-Series so bad that they never came out with a 1Ds Mark IV. It would have been so late to the market that the 1D-X ended up being released first.

The 5D came out in 2005, the 5D2 came out in 2008, 7D in 2009, 5D3 in 2012.

Currently it's 2014 and when the 7D2 comes out/gets announced, it'll be 5 years.

In that time other cameras in smaller form factors have features like 4K video (super useful even if you're editing for 1080p), tilting/foldout screen (immensely useful for event photographers), focus peaking (absolutely necessary in cinema), wifi (which is amazing for photographers or cinematographers who want to connect a wireless external monitor and enable remote capture or remote tethering), USB 3.0 (which could be used to capture raw footage or even tethered shooting), HDMI 1.4 which also allows for raw capture of footage, some other units even offer quad linked SDI for 4K raw capture.

I'm not sorry, but if Canon keeps putting out these lack luster offerings, they're only going to meet mediocre sales instead of being a class leader/innovator and end up cutting even more essential features that all their competitors have. 

People are going to have their panties in a nit on whether the C500 is the "best" offering, but this doesn't really matter in this discussion since we're talking about DSLRs and talking about Canon's missed opportunities here. I don't really know what's going on in their r&d departments, but they're moving along at much slower than a snails pace. Look at their offering for the EVIL segment.

The EOS M totally missed the market in the USA. Even the EOS M2, with its dual pixel focusing, isn't going to hit the USA Markets. Canon is consistent though. The Execs are great at confusing "innovations" with features the market wants.

I'm really curious who here in this discussion actually uses their gear for the generation of money.


----------



## tron (Aug 16, 2014)

kalieaire said:


> The EOS M totally missed the market in the USA. Even the EOS M2, with its dual pixel focusing, isn't going to hit the USA Markets.


Where did you read that M2 has dual pixel focusing?


----------



## candyman (Aug 16, 2014)

There is a lot of discussion about desired features - needed or not. 
I assume that the marketing department of Canon is constantly checking the market for desired features of their customer base, feature development of competitors .....and so on.
That should mean that whatever features the 7D MKII will have at launch, it is based on the result of the market research and represent the desired features of the majority and must be able to compete. Not?
So if features are missing that some of you desire, maybe it represents features that are wished by the minority...not?
So that makes me curious what features really will be implemented....


----------



## greger (Aug 16, 2014)

My 7D doesn't have WiFi. If you want to use an iPad to operate a camera that doesn't have WiFi buy a CamRanger or
one of the other devices that creates it's own WiFi Zone. I installed EOS Utility on my iPad Air and if I go into my wife's
70D's Menue and turn on WiFi shooting, then I can operate her 70D with my iPad. I feel Canon should include WiFi in
all of the new cameras. It's not a deal breaker for me. I am not ready to part with my 7D and upgrade yet. Maybe a FF
is my future camera. I look forward to new announcements. I just spent my 7Dll Money on my Car. I need it to go out
and about so I can take pics. ;D


----------



## pedro (Aug 16, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Lots of talk about features and nick-knacks and specs.
> 
> Show me the sensor. The rest doesn't matter to me if the sensor is weak.



Amen to that. It all depends on this. Hope there won't be another incarnation using the same tech (I hardly have clue of it, I confess) but reading and somehow "seeing" what other brands are putting on their shelves, I guess it is about time for Canon to leapfrog a bit.

Using the 5D3 and saving up for the overnext incarnation of a 5D series cam, I can see exciting times rolling around for us amateurs and the pro's as well. But only, if sensor tech improves... I would like to see an extremely well looking ISO 51k on the next or overnext 5D... Anyway, my 5D3 is a great cam, and still more cam than I ever needed... Had the 6D CF card slots, I'd even swap it for one like these...


----------



## Vossie (Aug 16, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> What is professional? For me the only difference between an amateur and a professional photographer is that the latter one makes money with photos.



Exactly. A pro does it for a living. Some pro's shoot with 1D series, some shoot with xxxD series. 

I do agree though with jrista that having many dedicated buttons typically allows for more rapid adjustments of settings compared to touchscreens. 

I am really curious to see the final specs and performance of the 7D2. I now have only 1 body, and I would be interested in a 2nd body to cpmplement by 5D3. I would be really interested in a APC-C body with ~20-someting MP, 5D3 like AF, ~10 fps and ISO performance that is max 1 stop worse compared to the 5D3 if it would be priced similar to the 6D.


----------



## pedro (Aug 16, 2014)

daniela said:


> Actual Rumors in Japanese chat forums (got infos from an japanese girlfriend:
> 
> - 400.000 Yen (>2900€) (variying 300.000-450.000 Y, most rumors on 400.000)
> - designed for sports photography. >10 pps, AF speed on miirrorless camera niveau, fast and accurate AF on moving objects (tracking a lot better than actual 7D)
> ...



Intresting forum talk in japanese rumor forums. IF the announcement price is really higher than 2900 €, then a 5DIV will be announced at 4000. Hope this is not true.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> were talking about refined devices meant for a professional, or extreme hobbyist who might as well be a professional.



What makes you think we don't want touch screens?



> It's why I brought up airplane cockpits in my prior post...people have talked about making airplane cockpits more modern for decades, however they are still built today primarily with individual dials and knobs and levers and switches and readouts (even the highly advanced Dreamliner).



Ever hear of the glass cockpit? The entire goal has been reduction of the number of dials and knobs and levers and switches and readouts. Granted there are still a lot of those, just like a pro level DSLR would still have twin dials and CFn buttons and a top LCD with buttons for changing settings, etc. But the touch screen has its place.



> Because it isn't some run of the mill consumer device meant to be easy...but potentially inefficient...



False dilemma. Again I'll ask if you've ever used a Canon DSLR (or M) with a touch screen? Some things become more efficient. After using the M I find myself inadvertently touching the screens on my DSLRs because my mind clings to the faster/more intuitive method despite years of using Canon's physical UI.



> Digging through menus is one thing...however, how often do you really do that?



Card formatting. Sensor cleaning. HTP on/off. MLU on/off. AEB. VF display changes. Wireless flash control. Some or all will be accessed for every shoot (except maybe surfing where I snap the mode dial to C3 and go). Not to mention image review.

Quite a lot actually.

Oh yeah...I would love to have a touch screen when in LiveView.



> Touch might offer an alternative means, but I truly don't think it would be any faster or better.



I think at this point it's safe to say I've got my answer. Forget the question of whether or not touch screens are a pro or a con: the public has already spoken. The more interesting question is: why would you be so adamantly against something you've never tried? It's not based on any factual evaluation of or experience with touch screens in DSLRs. What could it possibly be based on? Your rhetoric is impressive in terms of emotional persuasion but seriously lacking in terms of reason and support.



> THAT is my photography. THAT is what I do with a camera.



Are you afraid that Canon is going to someday give you a shutter button and a touch screen and nothing else???



> Digging around through menu systems, or poking around through the quick access screen, are things I do when I'm NOT actually doing photography.



Some of us have more varied shoots and need to access more features while shooting.



> I am just saying...it's NOT how a professional or an avid enthusiast uses a DSLR.



So you have a statistically valid survey of professional and enthusiast users and how they use their cameras? Great! Let's see it ;D



> Ask any serious or professional bird or wildlife photographer, sports photographer, probably most any action photographer, and they will likely tell you the same thing. Why would anyone want to pull the camera away from their face to fiddle with a UI when they are actually doing photography?



Why would they have to? Again, do you really believe that a touch screen on a pro level body would replace rather then compliment the physical controls?


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> You guys are still totally missing the point. I'll keep it simple:



Please.



> I mean, of ALL the things to get irate about...not having a touch UI is a deal killer???



It's not a deal killer for me, but fairly disappointing now that I've got serious time on a camera with a touch screen.



> Where are all the people saying not having a 24mp APS-C sensor capable of 14 stops of DR is a deal killer? Oh, right, they are busy wasting their time complaining about the lack of a touch UI.



Another false dilemma?



> I know you guys all have your dreams about how useful a touch UI could be for some things.



Dreams? Canon is shipping cameras with touch screens. Some of us have cameras with touch screens. We are actually using touch screens. They are freaking nice.

Like I said, I find myself touching my DSLR screen and thinking "doh! hope Canon adds that to the next version."



> They can slap on a touch UI later. Hell, they could slap on a tough UI with a freakin firmware update.



Touch UI requires a physical touch screen. But it is something they could slap on with practically no additional development time. (Not two weeks before the announcement of course. But during development it would have been trivial.)

But...they apparently don't think touch screens are durable enough yet. Maybe they fail under cold or wet conditions, I don't know. I can see that being a valid reason for not putting one on the 7D mkII, but I am disappointed none the less.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

kalieaire said:


> I'm not sorry, but if Canon keeps putting out these lack luster offerings, they're only going to meet mediocre sales instead of being a class leader/innovator and end up cutting even more essential features that all their competitors have.



So 12fps, a killer AI servo AF system and heavy duty build on an APS-C body is "lack luster!" Next you'll be saying it's going to fail because it has a mirror and an optical viewfinder. Your predictions remind me very much of the "The 5D3 will fail because it's barely higher megapixels than the 5D2 and the D800 is high megapixel" talk from two years ago. Well, two years on and the 5D3 is still going strong. Primarily because the total package of the product just works, for all kinds of shooters. The 5D3 was targeted specifically at a market and succeeded, but was also great for a variety of shooting. I predict the 7D2 will be even more targeted, but it will also suceed. Yes, wifi and touch screens would be cool features, but they are not the CORE features the target market for the intended target market. Sure, leading class video would be a great feature, but again--not critical for the intended market. I think that Canon wants to give the pro and enthusiast wildlife/sport/action market a camera that meets our specific needs in an APS-C image capture device. It will also be a fantastic camera for other uses as well, but it will be a fast action shooters dream camera (at least if one cannot afford a 1 series camera). 

I imagine the 5D4 will probably be a more general purpose camera, with some considerable crossover for more "action" oriented shooting. And it will also be the much better choice for low-light shooting scenarios common for wedding and event shooting. I also expect the 5D4 to be more video-centric as I think the torch for video passed from the 7D line to the 5D line when the 5D3 came into being. 

It's a "right camera for the right reason" sort of situation. Just because the 7D2 may not be the right tool for you, doesn't mean it isn't the right tool for those of us who are awaiting it! Personally, I'm glad Canon is not watering the spec for this camera down to cater to the lowest common denominator shooter! 8)


----------



## Canon1 (Aug 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Wow, this has become a painful and annoying thread to read. You have all made your points... Over and over again. Does it really matter if you convince the other guy that you are right? Let it go. It's obvious that some want a touch screen and some people don't. I'm all for a little debate, but this is rediculus... Over a touch screen!!! My advice: Move on and let it go.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2014)

@ jrista – you seem to be taking the line of thought that including a touchscreen would come at the price of removing dials/buttons, but there no reason to think that would be the case on a higher end dSLR. Rather, a touchscreen would add functionality. If the 7DII has improved DPAF, would you really want to drive the AF point around the frame with a joystick? 

As others have stated, touch screens are becoming the norm - on phones, on remote controls, even on microwave ovens. Your average teenager or twenty-something can type two-thumbed on an iPhone at wpm rates faster than most people can achieve on a regular keyboard. Those are the people becoming professional photographers today.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You guys are still totally missing the point. I'll keep it simple:
> ...



Although the absence of the touch screen surprised me as well, it's certainly not one of my own primary expectations for this camera--and so far the rumours are fitting with my expectations. I'm just wondering if some of the prototypes had touch screens (and maybe wifi) and they failed? It's possible the testing involved some rigorous durability testing and the prototypes with touch screens didn't make the cut. At that point, it might have been a case of priorities. If durability was a higher priority than implementing the touch screen, then a testing failure might have seen it eliminated. Just speculation on my part of course.... :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Just speculation



The same could be said of almost all of these 'known' specs.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Just speculation
> ...



Indeed, but the "what we’re getting is going to be true" seems to indicate high confidence that this information has a certain level of confidence. Moreover, the high frame-rate and new AF system make "sense" for this camera. Only time will tell, but I suspect CR is pretty confident in this information. But if the absence of wifi and touch screen is a matter of high confidence, the "reasons" behind their absence remain an interesting topic for speculation. Needed or not, I think most of us expected the 7D2 to have them...and it's kind of interesting to wonder at the logic. A testing failure might explain much.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 16, 2014)

I owned a 650D for a short time that had the touch screen. I sold the camera pretty quick because the overall package didn't suit me at all, but the touch screen worked well, complementing the physical buttons. I had the usual touch screen issues such as use with gloves, not working if the camera was warm and my hands very cold, then being slow to adjust back to physical menu after being used to touch screen. Greasy screen no big deal, wipes away real quick. 

I think the touch screen will eventually make it's way to pro orientated camera as a compliment to the physical controls- unlike pop up flash. If it is not included in the 7DII there will be a valid reason for its omission I'm sure. 

Not sure about the aircraft cockpit analogy. There isn't the same momentum of sales drive to a massive audience in aircraft. Also all pilots are trained and the many who fly commercially are obviously (hopefully !) professionals. If the _only_ people who used dslr cameras were genuine full time professionals I wonder where the dslr would be now in its development ? Probably still at the 1D / D2 stage, as professionals are notorious for finding a piece of equipment that does the job for them and then staying with it.

What I am going to find interesting is price / spec combination because it will give an insight into how secure the likes of Canon are with their FF premium mark up, and if we are unlikely to see FF coming down in price. Assuming the rumoured specs are anything like correct, if it is priced at about the 6D then Canon are very confident in the FF advantage. However if it's much more expensive then they clearly are not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Indeed, but the "what we’re getting is going to be true" seems to indicate high confidence that this information has a certain level of confidence.



Perhaps. Note however the lack of a [CR3] designation – rather, this front page post seems to be a restatement of an earlier [CR2] post. The length of this thread says that restatement has served it's purpose of driving site traffic...

The original [CR2] post about no wifi was updated to read: "_We’ve been told that the omission of the wifi in the 7D replacement is due to how the body is designed. The durable full metal body would make wifi transmission unreliable at best._" To me, that renders the source questionable, as there are a variety of simple engineering solutions to that problem which Canon could have implemented. 

Consider the following two previous CR2 posts:

[quote author=Canon Rumors]
We're told there are tons of new DSLR products coming for Photokina this September. 

We’re getting more confirmations that the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS will be replaced by a new version with a rotating zoom instead of the push/pull design that the lens currently uses.
[/quote]

[quote author=Canon Rumors]
I’ve been told to expect two more announcements before Photokina begins in September. 

We were recently told that a new EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS was coming sooner than we originally thought.
[/quote]

Both [CR2] like the original mentions of the 7DII info under discussion. Both mentions of the new 100-400L sound pretty confident. However, one refers to the upcoming Photokina meeting, while the other refers to the Photokina held in 2012.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, but the "what we’re getting is going to be true" seems to indicate high confidence that this information has a certain level of confidence.
> ...



[quote author=Canon Rumors]
I’ve been told to expect two more announcements before Photokina begins in September. 

We were recently told that a new EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS was coming sooner than we originally thought.
[/quote]

Both [CR2] like the original mentions of the 7DII info under discussion. Both mentions of the new 100-400L sound pretty confident. However, one refers to the upcoming Photokina meeting, while the other refers to the Photokina held in 2012. 
[/quote]

True, there is no CR# for this at all, and that's odd. If they're right, we will know for sure in 3 weeks or so. I suspect they are correct, but only time will tell. Regardless, speculation about a product that one finds exciting is FUN! Well, at least I think it is anyway....


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

What is the general consensus? I suspect these specs will be fairly accurate because and that the camera will be announced in September because:

1. CR seems fairly confident, both about specs and an imminent announcement.
2. Canon is due for a *major * camera release.
3. The specs are very similar to previously published specs regarding prototypes. 
4. The specs make *sense * for this camera and its target market!

Anyone else agree, or have a contrary opinion?


----------



## unfocused (Aug 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The original [CR2] post about no wifi was updated to read: "_We’ve been told that the omission of the wifi in the 7D replacement is due to how the body is designed. The durable full metal body would make wifi transmission unreliable at best._" To me, that renders the source questionable, as there are a variety of simple engineering solutions to that problem which Canon could have implemented.





Sporgon said:


> I think the touch screen will eventually make it's way to pro orientated camera as a compliment to the physical controls- unlike pop up flash. If it is not included in the 7DII there will be a valid reason for its omission I'm sure.



If this rumor is true (and that's a big "if") then I am inclined to think that the omission of both wifi and touch screen are due to engineering limitations not marketing decisions. There are good, solid reasons why both should be included in a flagship APS-C camera. 

As someone else stated, not having a touch screen will be a tremendous handicap for video. I can't believe Canon would omit this feature lightly. In fact, if you are not going to have a touchscreen, I'm not even sure why you would implement dual-pixel technology.

Similarly, I can't see Canon giving up wi-fi if they could avoid it. Again, the lack of the feature will make the camera less attractive for a certain buying segment and I don't think they would do that without some solid engineering reason not to.

I don't know what to make of this, except that I think it does open up the possibility that this body will really be much closer to a 1DX in build quality than to a 5DIII. 

No touchscreen and no wi-fi because the body is bombproof?


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The original [CR2] post about no wifi was updated to read: "_We’ve been told that the omission of the wifi in the 7D replacement is due to how the body is designed. The durable full metal body would make wifi transmission unreliable at best._" To me, that renders the source questionable, as there are a variety of simple engineering solutions to that problem which Canon could have implemented.
> ...




I suspect that is exactly the case. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a LOT of different prototypes testing various features and configurations. If the prototypes with touch screens proved too fragile for the desired build quality, it was probably scrapped as the build quality was considered the more important feature for the expected market. Ditto wifi--if the prototypes with wifi experienced poor performance due to interference from the heavy-duty body, or the antenna proved to be a weak point in the weather sealing, it might have been decided to remove it from the design. All of this is pure speculation of course (much more so than the actual statement of their absence itself), but I believe it's speculation that makes sense. 

I'm not sure I agree that DPAF without touch screen is without utility--true you lose a potent way of selecting focus points for video/live view, but it still allows much, much better focussing in those modes, and you can still use the thumb controller. Also, if the patent showing conventional AF and DPAF working together is relevant to the 7D2, then that is another compelling reason to use it, notwithstanding the lack of a touch screen.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 16, 2014)

unfocused said:


> [...]
> 
> Similarly, I can't see Canon giving up wi-fi if they could avoid it. Again, the lack of the feature will make the camera less attractive for a certain buying segment and I don't think they would do that without some solid engineering reason not to.
> 
> ...



I don't see any reason to omit Wifi and touchscreen to keep the body "bombproof". There is not need to use metal to get "bombproof". Polycarbonate and Kevlar are materials used to protect people against projectiles ...

As stated before you need just 2 or three small holes to feed antenna cables from inside to outside and build them in the card compartment flap made of HQ plastics, the battery compartment lid and perhaps in the flash socket - to get omnidirectional connectivity.
Hardened glass or saphir glass are scratch resistant and withstand high forces before they break - a standard in mid end smart phones since several years.

I see two reasons:
- Canon feeds us to think about 70D or 7Dii and a lot of us will get both as primary and secondary body
- Canon will give the 7Dii a "sister modell" with movie oriented features meaning touchscreen for rapid focus point selection and Wifi to do exactly that without touching (and moving) the camera.

My camera would be a EOS 40D with the touch screen and sensor of the 70D - I love the joystick controller and the overall haptics of my 40D or otherwise: I would like a 80D with controls like the former xxD models (<=50D).

So my conclusion is - if the currently anticipated specs are valid - not to buy the 7Dii but to wait another round of camera models (since 2 or 3 years).


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 16, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Greenmeenie said:
> ...


I have a couple of cameras with WiFi. I have yet to use either of them to download photos, but have used WiFi for taking pictures remotely.

And for those of you who say that you can't have WiFi on a metal shell camera, please explain to me why it works so well on the Olympus TG-3...


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...


----------



## RickWagoner (Aug 16, 2014)

unfocused said:


> No touchscreen and no wi-fi because the body is bombproof?




Touch Screens like Gorilla glass are stronger than anything on a DSLR today, you can also do covers on top that would still make it usable. WiFi is simple and does not need anything much to get it going good (look how small the Nikon WIFI dongle is). You have plenty of antenna areas like around the top screen or the battery and card doors or even the shutter button has plenty of room. Actually it would not be that hard to do dual-band WIFI, one wifi signal sends and another receives making live view smooth and fast. 

I have to give Canon credit for the wifi and touch screen DSLRs they have out now, they are not bad and at least they're doing it in the camera unlike Nikon. Nikon makes you buy a dongle, if the camera was done correct the first time it shouldn't need a dongle for something we have on a simple thermostat or oven today. 

I would love to see how a DIGIC chip compares to the stuff on smartphones today and if it would make a huge difference in buffer speeds. I know both are based off ARM designs..I need to look into that.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



I don't think that you cannot have a wifi antenna on a metal body, but implementation _might _ be tricky. Reflected or attenuated signals might cause reliability issues. It could be as simple as the prototypes with wifi ran into issues that would have been time consuming and expensive to fix, resulting in further delays.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> And for those of you who say that you can't have WiFi on a metal shell camera, please explain to me why it works so well on the Olympus TG-3...



+1

There are metal-shelled WiFi devices, there are devices with touchscreens (including some cameras) that are shockproof (to MIL or other accepted standards), etc. As I stated, these are engineering problems that have been solved. 

It's ok, though. If you need wifi on your 7DII/X, Canon will happily sell you the WFT-E8A for ~$800. :


----------



## x-vision (Aug 16, 2014)

Marauder said:


> What is the general consensus? I suspect these specs will be fairly accurate because and that the camera will be announced in September because:
> 
> 1. CR seems fairly confident, both about specs and an imminent announcement.
> 2. Canon is due for a *major * camera release.
> ...



You are basically assuming that CanonRumors somehow has correct info.
If they do, your points make sense. 

The thing is, I haven't seen a single CanonRumors post on the 7DII that is anything but speculation/wishlist.

Consider this latest rundown of rumors on the 7DII: 
How many megapixels will the 7DII have? And how many AF points? 
These are the easy numbers for anyone with insight info - especially the megapixel count.

There's the 12fps number - but without the more important numbers, the 12fps number is not confidence inspiring. 

Overall, I think that there is no real info about the 7DII on this site ... less than a month before announcement.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

RickWagoner said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > No touchscreen and no wi-fi because the body is bombproof?
> ...



I keep reading here how tough smartphone glass is compared to DSLR glass. It's stated repeatedly as a fact, but I'm not sure if I believe that statement. I don't know anything about Gorilla glass, so I'm not really able to say with certainty. 

That being said however, I have see quite a few iPhones and Samsung (and other brands) smartphones with screens that were all but shattered after fairly trivial drops. (Possibly this is a generational thing and the older models, from even a couple years ago were not as tough as the latest?) On the other hand, I've watched videos of various Canon and Nikon cameras (and not 1 series or D3/D4's either--semi-pro models like 5D and 7D) being dropped down cement stairs repeatedly without damaged screens--and still functional after the "test." Sure there was an element of showmanship and theatre to these drop tests--but they nonetheless illustrate a point. 

Is there any actual factual comparison between the glass mounted on premium DSLR's like the 1DX/D4S and the latest screens mounted to DSLR's? It's very easy to just make a statement that smartphone glass is tougher than anything mounted to a DSLR. It'd be interesting to see a comparison.

If I sound doubtful, it's just that I see plenty of dubious statements when it comes to phone vs camera. The notion that cell phone cameras render all other cameras, up to and including entry level DSLR's and CSC's as obsolete is simply silly and I've seen statements to that effect. It's even silly to say that the cell phone camera has killed all point and shoot cameras -- Superzooms (such as the SX50) and premium compacts (like the Sony RX and Canon G series) are holding their own. Even the disappearance of basic compacts has to do more with the convenience than capability. Smartphone cameras are quite amazing, but they lack optical zoom, and are thus limited to shooting wide angle, or delving into digital zoom. 

Well anyways, that last bit was a bit of a tangent to the principal point, but it's one that's been on my mind! LOL


----------



## candyman (Aug 16, 2014)

x-vision said:


> .....................
> Overall, I think that there is no real info about the 7DII on this site ... less than a month before announcement.




Might even be less than a few days before announcement : 
Wasn't that the case with the 5D MK III?


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

x-vision said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > What is the general consensus? I suspect these specs will be fairly accurate because and that the camera will be announced in September because:
> ...



We cannot know for sure if they are correct of course--we don't even have a CR# for this rumour. But they do seem quite confident and these figures do gel with previous stats posted last year when prototypes were apparently being tested. And they make absolute sense as well. The camera must be a genuine step up from the 7D and 70D to be a success. The anticipated frame rate has always been at, or north of 10 fps--again, that only makes sense. We won't know if CR is "right" till the camera is either announced officially, or we get a CR3 attached to specs. But these figures certainly seem sensible, given the camera's target audience.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 16, 2014)

Marauder said:


> But they do seem quite confident ...



But I'm not confident at all ... in their confidence 8).


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 16, 2014)

x-vision said:


> The thing is, I haven't seen a single CanonRumors post on the 7DII that is anything but speculation/wishlist.
> 
> Overall, I think that there is no real info about the 7DII on this site ... less than a month before announcement.


+1

Remember the 70D? The most important thing about it was DPAF. Remember how many rumours about DPAF on the 70D? Zero!

Remember all the rumours about the new 100-400? All these rumours over the last 4 years about how it's release was imminent? If the rumours were true it should have been released a dozen times already....

The only thing that we can say with any degree of certainty is that Canon does a very good job of keeping it's releases secret until they are officially announced. A rumour is just a rumour. It means nothing! They are just speculation on what may come.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is, I haven't seen a single CanonRumors post on the 7DII that is anything but speculation/wishlist.
> ...



LOL


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is, I haven't seen a single CanonRumors post on the 7DII that is anything but speculation/wishlist.
> ...



True, but as I recall CR did scoop the basic stats about sensor resolution, frame-rate etc. just prior to the official launch. And Canon was NOT happy about it either. 

I'm not saying there are a ton of things we won't know about the camera till it's released. But it does seem that CR is pretty confident in what little they have heard about it. Only time will tell, but its these little snippets that keep us coming here, right?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 16, 2014)

daniela said:


> Actual Rumors in Japanese chat forums (got infos from an japanese girlfriend:
> 
> - 400.000 Yen (>2900€) (variying 300.000-450.000 Y, most rumors on 400.000)
> - designed for sports photography. >10 pps, AF speed on miirrorless camera niveau, fast and accurate AF on moving objects (tracking a lot better than actual 7D)
> ...



I can't wait to get my hands on a goldenegglayingwoolmilksaw with good IQ/DR for the non-pro user!


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> daniela said:
> 
> 
> > Actual Rumors in Japanese chat forums (got infos from an japanese girlfriend:
> ...



You just took the goldenegglayingwoolmilksaw words right out of my mouth! ;D


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 16, 2014)

Marauder said:


> [...]
> 
> That being said however, I have see quite a few iPhones and Samsung (and other brands) smartphones with screens that were all but shattered after fairly trivial drops. (Possibly this is a generational thing and the older models, from even a couple years ago were not as tough as the latest?) On the other hand, I've watched videos of various Canon and Nikon cameras (and not 1 series or D3/D4's either--semi-pro models like 5D and 7D) being dropped down cement stairs repeatedly without damaged screens--and still functional after the "test."
> [...]



Most full size display smartphones use the glass plate as structural component. I own a DEFY smartphone where the edge of the glass front is protected by 1 or 2mm of stiff plastics. I dropped it several times but not on concrete or worse material and it resided 3 years now in my left trousers pocket, some times with a 10 ct. piece rubbing on the front - not a visible scratch.

A DSLR protects the display more or less by its metal or plastic shell. In fact it is not easy to hit the display by flat ground or the edges of stairs.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...



If I'm understanding you correctly, the glass on a smartphone (even if Gorilla glass, or some very tough equivalent) is usually more vulnerable to damage because it doesn't have the same rigid structure protecting it that the screen of a DSLR enjoys. Makes good sense. The remaining question then, is it reasonable to presume that the possible reason the 7D2 will lack a touch screen (if the rumour is correct) is that Canon wants to provide a tougher screen to resist abrasion/damage? The implication of "Not touch screen, super durable LCD cover" is that the touch screen has been left off due to durability issues, but that seems to be a controversial supposition. I'm not versed enough on the design elements to say whether that is a reasonable design choice. Some seem to think a touch screen should be as tough as a non-touch screen.


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 16, 2014)

Speaking of screens, how well do the latest screens handle bright, direct sunlight these days?


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 16, 2014)

Marauder said:


> I keep reading here how tough smartphone glass is compared to DSLR glass. It's stated repeatedly as a fact, but I'm not sure if I believe that statement. I don't know anything about Gorilla glass, so I'm not really able to say with certainty.
> 
> That being said however, I have see quite a few iPhones and Samsung (and other brands) smartphones with screens that were all but shattered after fairly trivial drops. (Possibly this is a generational thing and the older models, from even a couple years ago were not as tough as the latest?) On the other hand, I've watched videos of various Canon and Nikon cameras (and not 1 series or D3/D4's either--semi-pro models like 5D and 7D) being dropped down cement stairs repeatedly without damaged screens--and still functional after the "test." Sure there was an element of showmanship and theatre to these drop tests--but they nonetheless illustrate a point.



Gorilla glass is designed to be highly flexible, so that if you sit on your phone, it won't shatter. But there's a big difference between gradual flexing and an impact, and all glass, including Gorilla glass, is susceptible to shattering upon proper impact. That's the nature of glass. If it were soft enough to perfectly resist impacts, it would also be soft enough to scratch in your pocket. It's a tradeoff. They're making great strides at improving the surface hardness of the glass so that it resists scratches that can make hard materials more likely to shatter, but it is still fundamentally a hard material.

However, all of the Canon DSLRs I've used have a plastic screen cover, and I'd be surprised if that were not true across the board. Plastic is a lot more flexible, albeit at a cost in terms of getting scratched a lot more easily. On the other hand, you don't put your DSLR in your pocket, so scratch resistance is less relevant.

Maybe they decided to use glass for the touchscreen models—I've never used one of those, so I can't be certain—but it certainly doesn't seem like an obvious design choice to me. Then again, I'm not a fan of glass on cell phones, either. I'd rather have a plastic screen cover that I can peel off and replace when it gets scratched. It's not like that's a significant part of the cost of a phone. Just make it disposable and be done with it.


----------



## jrista (Aug 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> @ jrista – you seem to be taking the line of thought that including a touchscreen would come at the price of removing dials/buttons, but there no reason to think that would be the case on a higher end dSLR. Rather, a touchscreen would add functionality. If the 7DII has improved DPAF, would you really want to drive the AF point around the frame with a joystick?
> 
> As others have stated, touch screens are becoming the norm - on phones, on remote controls, even on microwave ovens. Your average teenager or twenty-something can type two-thumbed on an iPhone at wpm rates faster than most people can achieve on a regular keyboard. Those are the people becoming professional photographers today.



That's not my line of thought. My line of thought is, adding a touch screen and all the firmware *requires resources* at Canon to perform. _They have to implement it, test it, work the bugs out of it, etc._ All that...when there are other things Canon could be investing those resources into. My line of thought is, for everyone who puts lack of a Touch UI at the top of their list of deal breakers or the thing that makes them must frustrated about the 7D II...they are very short sighted. My line of thought is, while I fully agree a Touch UI is nice (*I've used the EOS-M's touch UI...its nice*), it is the farthest thing from the most "essential" feature that the 7D II could possibly get.

That's my line of thought. Personally, the deal breaker for me, is whether Canon does something fundamentally new with their sensor design or not. Personally, the biggest bummer for me, would be if Canon doesn't include a 1DX/5DIII class level AF system or not. Another bummer for me would be if the 7D II gets a massive video update...but still has the same old IQ issues that Canon's past cameras have had. THOSE are deal breakers. Those are real things to complain about. Those things would show that Canon has lost touch with what their customers want (which they so far have a good track record of, Canon has listened and listened well to their customers in the past), and THAT would be the single worst outcome of all with the 7D II release. 

Not having a touch UI...it doesn't matter to me one way or another whether they include one or not, so long as it doesn't cause them to NOT do something that really IS a deal breaker. I'd be pissed if the 7DII hit the streets with a super awesome kick ass touch UI...and the same old freaking sensor, same old iFCL metering sensor and limited metering behavior, and worst of all...same old freakin gimped out 19pt AF system that can't reliably maintain a SOLID lock on a target. THAT would piss me off. I could care less if it has a touch UI, though.

Maybe it's just a matter of perspective. I've invested a lot of money in Canon equipment, and I want them to progress on all fronts. I don't think the inclusion or lack of a touch UI has anything to do with the fundamental bottom line for how consumers and professionals see Canon as a company, or grade their products relative to other companies. I do think, however, that Canon releasing another camera that still has the same IQ as the 5D II did so many years ago now, would have a SIGNIFICANT impact on how people perceive Canon as a company...and much like other major companies in the past, that could be the focal point that sends Canon into a long term decline, affecting their R&D budgets for the future, affecting their ability to legitimately compete on the multiple technological fronts that they are having to do battle in, etc. I don't want to be stuck with a $13,000 lens and a brand new Canon 5D V five years from now that...isn't any better than my 5D III from a fundamental IQ standpoint, while Sony sensors are literally cranking out 15.8 stop of DR with 16-bit RAW files in Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, and every other camera manufacturer on earth. 

Canon has a problem. I know you do not believe that, but they do. It's a _perceptual _problem, and it could seriously affect their revenues and ability to fund the necessary R&D in the years to come. Such things have happened before, and often companies, even if they were on the top of the world, NEVER recover (Kodak?) So...seriously...touch screens and touch UIs?

Anyway, I'm out. Got other things to do.


----------



## 20Dave (Aug 16, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Only time will tell, but its these little snippets that keep us coming here, right?



It feels like two weeks before the NFL draft, with CR playing the part of Mel Kiper. 

Kiper: "Well it's a lock that Canon will be drafting a replacement for the aging 7D in the first round. It looked like a mini-1DX at the combine, and hopefully that will translate into production."
McShay: "That's probably true. However, although everyone expects a 100-400 in the second round, I wouldn't be surprised to see them to pass like they did for the last couple of years. Maybe a surprise like a 180 macro with IS, just to create a splash."

And like on sports forums, there is as much (if not more) angst about what might happen than about what actually does happen. 

I'm just happy that I bought my 5D3 nearly two years ago to replace my aging 20D rather than waiting for the 7D2 (which I was strongly considering). When the 7D2 (or whatever they call it) finally comes out, it might be the best fit for my uses, but I'm more than happy enough with my current camera so I'm not really interested in moving over. As for the 100-400, if that comes out and if it has similar performance like the 70-200 II, that might be a different story.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > @ jrista – you seem to be taking the line of thought that including a touchscreen would come at the price of removing dials/buttons, but there no reason to think that would be the case on a higher end dSLR. Rather, a touchscreen would add functionality. If the 7DII has improved DPAF, would you really want to drive the AF point around the frame with a joystick?
> ...



I concur. The potential absence of a touch screen surprised me, rather than upset me. But for me a killer AF with amazing speed and accuracy, combined with a high burst rate (and deep buffer to use it), are the two main "must have" items for this camera. An improved sensor is also very desirable and I think that may be the biggest challenge for them to achieve. 

Like you, I also want them to succeed and succeed well. Not just because I have a lot invested in their equipment, but because I want to see them retain their own sensor designing team. The best way to make sure both Sony and Canon sensors continue to improve is a healthy competition and spirit of innovation for *both * sensor design teams. (Oh yes, and Fuji too!).

Jon, am I detecting a note of pessimism when it comes to the sensor tech, or do you think they'll pull it out of the hat?


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

20Dave said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Only time will tell, but its these little snippets that keep us coming here, right?
> ...



100-400 II is also on my RADAR--but I cannot afford both and I am reasonably happy with my current 100-400. Still, I'd like to see them released together--then I could start saving for the lens after I buy the damn camera! LOL


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 16, 2014)

Marauder said:


> 100-400 II is also on my RADAR--but I cannot afford both and I am reasonably happy with my current 100-400. Still, I'd like to see them released together--then I could start saving for the lens after I buy the damn camera! LOL


I started saving for the 100-400II when the first rumours of it came out. I can now afford a 1DX and 800F5.6


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 16, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> However, all of the Canon DSLRs I've used have a plastic screen cover, and I'd be surprised if that were not true across the board. Plastic is a lot more flexible, albeit at a cost in terms of getting scratched a lot more easily. On the other hand, you don't put your DSLR in your pocket, so scratch resistance is less relevant.



The 7D,5D3, and 1DX have glass screens that are bonded to the LCD panel while all other non-touchscreen DSLRs have a replaceable plastic cover over the LCD. I'm not sure about the cameras with touchscreens though.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 16, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > 100-400 II is also on my RADAR--but I cannot afford both and I am reasonably happy with my current 100-400. Still, I'd like to see them released together--then I could start saving for the lens after I buy the damn camera! LOL
> ...


400mm f2.8 is ii + 2x tc iii is better than 800mm f5.6.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 16, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Marauder said:
> ...


yeah, but now I'm waiting for the 1DX2 and 800F5.6II


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > 100-400 II is also on my RADAR--but I cannot afford both and I am reasonably happy with my current 100-400. Still, I'd like to see them released together--then I could start saving for the lens after I buy the damn camera! LOL
> ...



LOL Canon Savings And Loan


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 16, 2014)

20Dave said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Only time will tell, but its these little snippets that keep us coming here, right?
> ...



Hah, yeah sports talk makes gear talk like child's play in comparison. ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 16, 2014)

Marauder said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > daniela said:
> ...



;D

I wonder how that translation came about! 

Most have heard about the goose that lays a golden egg and then maybe in their sayings wool stands in for something fancy? and then well not sure how you can saw milk, but if you could, I guess that would be kinda incredible so maybe it's a Japanese expression for something like beyond impossibly incredible, capable and awesome?

So they are combing that in one super ultra word that signifies something super fancy that is impossibly incredible and will sell so well at to bring near infinite profits (?) and using that to describe what they know of the 5D4 ;D (!)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > @ jrista – you seem to be taking the line of thought that including a touchscreen would come at the price of removing dials/buttons, but there no reason to think that would be the case on a higher end dSLR. Rather, a touchscreen would add functionality. If the 7DII has improved DPAF, would you really want to drive the AF point around the frame with a joystick?
> ...



Ok, by that line of thought Canon should not include AFMA in the 7DII, either. After all..._They have to implement it, test it, work the bugs out of it, etc._ 

Canon uses touchscreens in multiple products, including several dSLRs. The hardware is 'off the shelf' and the firmware for the UI is already written, and would need only tweaks and testing (just as AFMA would, although they blew the testing with the 1D X which had an AMFA bug at launch). So...the development resources needed would be minimal. But, Canon doesn't want to release a 'perfect' APS-C camera, so if there's no touchscreen in the 7DII (a big IF, at this point), no doubt it'll show up in the 7DIII.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


My thinking is that it is probably cheaper to just make one display and to use it on everything... only one part to stock... only one set of drivers to write..... This is why I would be surprised if it is omitted.


----------



## jrista (Aug 16, 2014)

Marauder said:


> I concur. The potential absence of a touch screen surprised me, rather than upset me. But for me a killer AF with amazing speed and accuracy, combined with a high burst rate (and deep buffer to use it), are the two main "must have" items for this camera. An improved sensor is also very desirable and I think that may be the biggest challenge for them to achieve.
> 
> Like you, I also want them to succeed and succeed well. Not just because I have a lot invested in their equipment, but because I want to see them retain their own sensor designing team. The best way to make sure both Sony and Canon sensors continue to improve is a healthy competition and spirit of innovation for *both * sensor design teams. (Oh yes, and Fuji too!).



I totally agree. We really need competition in the marketplace. Aptina and some of the other sensor manufacturers don't really compete in the larger form factor camera market (DSLRs and larger-sensor mirrorless). Since Nikon has effectively bowed out...it's mainly Sony and Canon, with a little bit of competition from Panasonic and maybe one or two other small players. So I agree, it's critical that Canon succeed here, so they don't hand Sony a default monopoly on a platter. 



Marauder said:


> Jon, am I detecting a note of pessimism when it comes to the sensor tech, or do you think they'll pull it out of the hat?



I dunno. I've watched Canon for years now. I had high hopes, based on the patents I've read about. But when you dig into the history of those patents, many of them were initially filed before the 7D came out, or shortly after the 7D. Some were filed around the time the 1D IV came out. Filed, then granted usually around 18 months later. That means Canon had the technology long before that. Some of the patents indicate initial research in 2004, 2005, 2006. 

A lot of Canon's patents sound very similar to the technology Sony has in the Exmor. I know Canon has a CP-ADC patent. They also have some very interesting patents that involve reducing dark current noise (something else Sony is very good at...Sony has some of the lowest dark current noise CCD sensors on the market that kick the crap out of the long-standing Kodak sensors. A Kodak KAF-8300, for example, has 0.02e-/s/px dark current noise accumulation, where as the new Sony ICX 674 and 694 sensors have an incredible 0.003e-/s/px...which is so low that no one who uses an astrocam with a Sony CCD even bothers with dark frames anymore...they simply aren't necessary anymore.) Canon has a patent that uses some kind of dynamic power disconnection to prevent dark current accumulation...I suspect it could reduce dark current levels below even Sony's CCD sensor levels. Canon also has a dual scale ADC readout system, which would allow them to switch to a slower readout speed when possible, which would also reduce read noise (a lot of read noise comes from high frequency components...reduce the frequency, reduce the noise.) 

Canon has all this technology, and yet...where is it? Some if it is a decade old!! Where is it?

Yeah, I'm pretty pessimistic now when it comes to Canon's ability to actually EMPLOY their patents in actual products. There is another company that was like that. They were one of the most innovative companies in the cellphone industry. They have a patent library that is MASSIVE, and has some of the most incredible technology in the cell phone, smartphone, and tablet industry. They had technology patented long before Apple started making things like the iPhone and iPad that could have crushed Apple before they even got started. But they never used the technology. They invented it all...and just sat on it. 

That company was Nokia. They used to be at the top of the cellphone world. They were the biggest manufacturer, raking in more money than all the rest combined. Look where they are now. They are a shadow of their former shadow, and Nokia itself no longer even owns a lot of those patents as they've sold them to Microsoft. Microsoft themselves is another company that rested on their laurels, and lost the race. They are still a force in the tech industry, but they have a major perceptual problem...they are often perceived as irrelevant now. 

When I look at Canon...I see some kind of blend between Microsoft and Nokia being their future. Canon has a LOT of amazing technology. They've prototyped ultra high resolution sensors with very high frame rates. They file more patents every year than nearly all other companies. And yet...where are the products that use that technology? Canon is quickly racing towards a future where they could potentially be perceived as irrelevant by the consumers that currently pay Canon's bills, fund their innovation. Canon is quickly racing towards a future where they have a ton of technology that they are just sitting on, just like Nokia, just like Kodak, instead of putting it to work making competitive products that give their competitors a run for their money. 

So yeah. I'm pretty pessimistic about Canon's *ability to bring technology to bear* in their products. The 7D II should have been in the works a long time ago. Canon should have been making it a competitive product long before the 5D III was released. Canon should have known where their competitors were going, so they wouldn't have been caught so massively off guard (as it seems clear now that they were...otherwise they wouldn't have had to delay the 7D II release so much...it's now two years overdue, that's a really long time.)

I am hoping the 7D II gets a major boost to still photography IQ, but it's a pessimistic hope. :-\


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 16, 2014)

I'd like the Touch IU added on top of whatever is already in place w/ an option to turn it off. It'd be a win for all who use it and those who don't need it.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > I concur. The potential absence of a touch screen surprised me, rather than upset me. But for me a killer AF with amazing speed and accuracy, combined with a high burst rate (and deep buffer to use it), are the two main "must have" items for this camera. An improved sensor is also very desirable and I think that may be the biggest challenge for them to achieve.
> ...



Complacency is a huge danger, especially when one gets bigger. Canon's been doing some amazing things with super telephoto lenses lately. They just need to get things rolling again. A while back there was a mention that many of the patents for the new sensor tech haven't even been filed. Hopefully that means they've pulled something special out of their hat. 

Your Kodak and Nokia examples are very relevant. Just a few months ago I was having a conversation about how dominant Nokia and Motorola were in cell phones, only to evaporate. When it comes to cameras too, it's hard not to think of Minolta--beating everyone to the Autofocus game with the Maxxum 7000 and 9000--only to lose it. Being on top can be nearly as dangerous as being on the bottom!


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > I concur. The potential absence of a touch screen surprised me, rather than upset me. But for me a killer AF with amazing speed and accuracy, combined with a high burst rate (and deep buffer to use it), are the two main "must have" items for this camera. An improved sensor is also very desirable and I think that may be the biggest challenge for them to achieve.
> ...


Agreed! They have done great things in the lab, but I think any advancements at the consumer level are not going to happen until they finally switch to finer lithography for their production work. They have this capability for the p/s models, but the DSLR sensors are still on old tech fabrication lines.

What I hope has been happening is that Canon had accurately foreseen the shrinkage of the P/S market and made the decision not to spend the immense amount of dollars to create a new fabrication line because they knew that space would be available in the future on the existing P/S line.... and I hope that the 7D2 will be the first DSLR sensor to come from this new line, with all the improvements they have been working on for the last 10 or so years.


----------



## that1guyy (Aug 16, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> "Serious" videographers should not clamor for freaking video-optimized crap in stills cameras, especially not in DSLRS with a mirror in the lightpath. They should go buy a panasonic GH4 if they are poor or a Sony A7S if they want "full frame/shallow DOF" or a canon C-something if they want a video-optimized camera or if they really dont mind the mirror and want FF plus 4k, then a canon EOS 1D-C ... if they are not so poor. An APS-C DSLR is by its very nature the least suitable video-recording device. So stay away from it.
> 
> I hope the 7D successor comes without any video-recording capabilities whatsoever. A lean and mean STILLS machine.





AvTvM said:


> "Serious" videographers should not clamor for freaking video-optimized crap in stills cameras, especially not in DSLRS with a mirror in the lightpath. They should go buy a panasonic GH4 if they are poor or a Sony A7S if they want "full frame/shallow DOF" or a canon C-something if they want a video-optimized camera or if they really dont mind the mirror and want FF plus 4k, then a canon EOS 1D-C ... if they are not so poor. An APS-C DSLR is by its very nature the least suitable video-recording device. So stay away from it.
> 
> I hope the 7D successor comes without any video-recording capabilities whatsoever. A lean and mean STILLS machine.



Your post is extremely ignorant. Please refrain from posting your drivel.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 17, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Marauder said:
> ...



I hope they do pull a rabbit out of their hat for this camera. A lot of eyes are on them right now. DPAF itself is an amazing technology that is unique to Canon. Now, if they can get IQ improvements as well, they will have an amazing line of new cameras. Hopefully the 7D2 delivers on that front as well and is the precursor for a whole new family of amazing sensors. Canon 'can' do it. They just need the same spirit they had when they scrapped the FD cameras and lenses for the EOS and EF system! They are clearly capable of great leaps!


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Aug 17, 2014)

@mcguyver: I hope too it will not be a "cripple to fit"- body.
Would be very nice they bring out a body which shows, what is possible now.
As the coming APS- C top notch body from the leading company it should fit in this category.

We will see soon.
I hope.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > I concur. The potential absence of a touch screen surprised me, rather than upset me. But for me a killer AF with amazing speed and accuracy, combined with a high burst rate (and deep buffer to use it), are the two main "must have" items for this camera. An improved sensor is also very desirable and I think that may be the biggest challenge for them to achieve.
> ...



Apple does get lucky! Atari could've beaten the MAC to the market, but they wanted to milk the 8bits more and kept telling the engineers to go away until they saw a need to actually do anything with the new ideas. By the Atari fumbled that and the tech eventually ended up at CBM and got put together Apple already had the MAC out for some time. Of course the Amiga was infinitely more advanced in every single way. But Apple also made some huge extra bits of their own luck by being masters of marketing and dirty tricks and once they got theirs out first they set things up so others, especially coming from companies also having strong associations with gaming, would have a rough, rough go of it.

Even today the average person on the street thinks Apple, IBM and Microsoft did at all and where always, one or the other, the tech leaders, when nothing could possible be farther from the truth. The average person doesn't even know the names of many of the true greats of early home computing era. They know of Wozniak, Jobs, Gates and if that is all they know, they truly know not all that much more than nothing. And we are saddled today with nasty Windows OS and somewhat archaic OSX and Linux. At least the hardware slowly did become more in the spirit of what the others guys did all along, way back since the early 80s (when they used to mock such things as being 'jokes' and 'toys').


----------



## Bruce Photography (Aug 17, 2014)

I wish Canon well. It would be nice to think about purchasing a Canon camera again. I love their tilt shift lenses.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> That's not my line of thought. My line of thought is, adding a touch screen and all the firmware *requires resources* at Canon to perform. _They have to implement it, test it, work the bugs out of it, etc._ All that...when there are other things Canon could be investing those resources into.



Again, they've already developed this tech. Adding it to the 7D2 would have required minimal effort during development. (Assuming this particular rumor is even true and it's not in fact there.) Doing so would involve separate engineers from, say, sensor development.

There probably were test units in the wild with touch screens which were the source of the initial rumors. They probably did in fact develop it. If it didn't make it to production, it likely was due to reliability. Admittedly I'll take build over touch screen at this time. But by the mark III reliability issues should be solved so that all their cameras can have a touch UI *** which compliments the physical UI ***.



> it is the farthest thing from the most "essential" feature that the 7D II could possibly get.



It is now annoying to use a camera that does not have touch. There are two cameras on my radar: a Sony A7 and the next Canon 7D. Neither has touch. This will not stop me personally from buying either, but it is annoying. Further...it will stop some people because touch UI is that important to the way they work. I can totally see why a cinematographer would demand a touch screen UI. 



> Personally, the deal breaker for me, is whether Canon does something fundamentally new with their sensor design or not.



Whatever they've done, there are too many rumors to assume it's a reheated version of the 70D sensor. I doubt multilayer is true, but I hope I'm wrong. Either they're using two layers for DR or three for RGB, and there's potential for great IQ gains either way.



> same old freakin gimped out 19pt AF system that can't reliably maintain a SOLID lock on a target.



I swear the 7D is the most divisive camera body. Either you think the IQ is great or you hate it. Either you have no problems with AF servo or it never works. Did Canon have a QC issue I'm not aware of???

I can't remember the last time my 7D lost AF lock on a target with either of my "sports" lenses, 70-200 f/4L and 300 f/4L IS, or with the 85 f/1.8 at distance.

If I have any complaints with my 7D's AF it's AF accuracy, particularly in very low light, with fast (f/2 or faster) primes shot wide open at closer (portrait) distances. There's too much play in these situations. Spot AF helps a bit.



> Canon has a problem. I know you do not believe that, but they do. It's a _perceptual _problem, and it could seriously affect their revenues and ability to fund the necessary R&D in the years to come.



They are #1 in DSLR sales. If they have a problem it certainly has not affected their revenues or R&D to date.



> Such things have happened before, and often companies, even if they were on the top of the world, NEVER recover (Kodak?)



Kodak was hit by a fundamental shift in technology equivalent to the invention of PCs and their impact on the typewriter industry. False analogy is false.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> Greenmeenie said:
> 
> 
> > No wifi or touch screen? Bummer. All future canon prosumer cameras should have BOTH wifi and touch screens IMHO.
> ...



B I N G O!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## DominoDude (Aug 17, 2014)

I really don't see the benefits of adding a touch screen. I prefer the tactile feedback from a button or a dial. Would a touch screen still work flawlessly on a cold winter day when it's snowing and the gloves are on? Would it work if I was out shooting in the rain?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> Canon has a problem. I know you do not believe that, but they do. It's a _perceptual _problem, and it could seriously affect their revenues and ability to fund the necessary R&D in the years to come. Such things have happened before, and often companies, even if they were on the top of the world, NEVER recover (Kodak?) So...seriously...touch screens and touch UIs?



Canon has a _perceptual_ problem? That depends on who is doing the perceiving. If you're referring to CR Forums and similar places, perhaps. Perceived 'poor sensor IQ' is an Internet forum problem Canon has had for years. Hasn't affected their market share, though.

As dtaylor stated, the analogy to Kodak is a red herring. 

Seriously, touch screens and touch UIs. Entry level cameras have them. Canon wants people to upgrade, and people don't like to give up features to which they're accustomed. Omitting basic features which a majority of their customer base expects to be included (a category into which touch screens fall, but low ISO DR does not) would certainly 'seriously affect their revenues and ability to fund the necessary R&D in the years to come'.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> Would a touch screen still work flawlessly on a cold winter day when it's snowing and the gloves are on?



I've spent hours out shooting snowy owls and bald eagles on frigid New England winter days. Lots and lots of waiting time between flights...time during which I sometimes post on CR from the touchscreen of my iPhone, with my hands toasty warm in technical gloves. Just sayin'...


----------



## Old Sarge (Aug 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has a problem. I know you do not believe that, but they do. It's a _perceptual _problem, and it could seriously affect their revenues and ability to fund the necessary R&D in the years to come. Such things have happened before, and often companies, even if they were on the top of the world, NEVER recover (Kodak?) So...seriously...touch screens and touch UIs?
> ...



I think you hit the nail on the head. Personally, I am not real fond of touch screens. Even so, I use an iPhone, not a Blackberry; I have a Nexus 7, I recently acquired a Surface Pro 3 and use it as a tablet more than I use the keyboard attachment. A good friend just got a 70D and I helped him set it up. Ended up using the touchscreen half the time setting it up. IF the 7DII, by whatever name, is in my price range it won't matter whether it has a touchscreen or not as far as I am concerned. I probably won't use it much if it has it and I won't miss it much if it doesn't. I don't shoot video much and since I have it on my G12 and my 7D I don't really care if the 7DII has it or not....but it makes a big difference for some people. Having features I don't have to use doesn't bother me as long as I get improved IQ, improved DR would be nice, and improved AF would be necessary for me to spend my money.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has a problem. I know you do not believe that, but they do. It's a _perceptual _problem, and it could seriously affect their revenues and ability to fund the necessary R&D in the years to come. Such things have happened before, and often companies, even if they were on the top of the world, NEVER recover (Kodak?) So...seriously...touch screens and touch UIs?
> ...



Neuro, I admire your patience and persistence. 

Clearly, this is one of those things that, for some people, goes beyond logic and rationality.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 17, 2014)

I think jrista's whole point was essentially that at THIS level of the Canon spectrum, cool features should play second fiddle to fundamentals. And I agree. If Canon is trying to make a paramount pro-level crop, keep pricing reasonable, and focus most consciously on the things that matter most to the target market they're after on the broadest scale possible....then they (and we) should be clamouring for solid and unmatched fundamentals. Maybe some analogies were misaligned but I appreciate his take on this. I've been Canon since I was five years old holding dad's A1. I still have it. 

The 70D fills the upscale consumer market. The enthusiasts and the crossover videographers. Feature rich with touch and wifi. 

The 7DX is for a more discerning palate looking for solid build (1DXish) in a crop that can handle harsh conditions if need be and deliver 1DXish AF and FPS. If engineering such a beast negates the use of touch and wifi, so be it. I agree that I do not believe Canon would cut such features without serious reason. One of which may be price considering everything else they wish to accomplish. 

I can live fine without either. I won't miss them. I know how to toggle a canon menu well enough. So do most of the pros who would be considering this grade of machine.

In the end, all this is little more than enjoyable conjecture and academia. We don't and won't know anything til the proverbial shit hits the fan next month


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 17, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> Would a touch screen still work flawlessly on a cold winter day when it's snowing and the gloves are on?


Around here it very rarely snows on a cold winter day... it usually has to warm up to -20C or higher before it snows. 

Seriously though, very few cameras are rated for use below freezing. The Olympus Tough series of p/s cameras are one of the few exceptions and it is only good down to -10C. Once most DSLRs get cold the displays stop working.... the LCD shoulder displays are usually the first to go.... touchscreens and the rear displays seem to keep on going longer....

From using the camera hooked up to a telescope in the winter, I would be more than happy to have WiFi to a phone so I could remote control the camera once the camera displays stop working....


----------



## rpt (Aug 17, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


 
Yup, I know that. Obviously a failed attempt at humour.


----------



## jrista (Aug 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has a problem. I know you do not believe that, but they do. It's a _perceptual _problem, and it could seriously affect their revenues and ability to fund the necessary R&D in the years to come. Such things have happened before, and often companies, even if they were on the top of the world, NEVER recover (Kodak?) So...seriously...touch screens and touch UIs?
> ...



I'm actually referring to real photographers I know out in the real world. Most are portrait, wedding, and event photographers. The majority of them already moved to the D800. Some are now seriously considering the D810. Others moved to Pentax (ironically, they really liked the small lenses most, but they also liked the IQ and shadow lifting ability.) The last several photographers I've encountered at the places I do my wildlife and bird photography, not one single one had a Canon camera. None had anything good to say about Canon. The only guy who DID have a Canon camera is an old friend who has haunted Cherry Creek State Park with a 7D, 5D III, and a 500mm f/4 L for years. 

I also take my knowledge here from all over the net. Not just here on CR...there is a VERY strong, powerful pro-Canon stance here, obviously, as one would expect. The story is not the same on DPR forums, Fred Miranda, photo.net forums. There is a strong and growing presence of members on those forums who are, just like myself, wondering when Canon is going to do something about overall still photography image IQ. 

The PERCEPTION is that Canon only cares about video now, and that they no longer care about the still photographer. That, fundamentally, is the biggest thing I've gathered, from real life photographers I know as well as the mounting trend on photography related internet forums. People perceive Canon as having forgotten about the still photographer, and as putting all their resources, both in video/cinema specific divisions as well as the DSLR/photography division, into video and video alone.

Is that a wrong perception? Looking at all the *facts *laid out behind us, it's really hard to think anything different. Starting with the 5D II, Canon dropped a video DSLR that sold TONS, and became one of the most popular DSLRs in history...because of the video features. Since the 5D II, the major "newsworthy" (I use that term, because when you dig into the image sensor world, most of the news sites, blogs, etc. pretty much ignore Canon, all the news is from Sony, Atpina, Omnivision, Samsung, Panasonic, Toshiba...basically everyone BUT Canon) image sensor improvements have all been...yup, video related. The 7D II has long been rumored to be a major VIDEO update. Canon has invested a significant amount of money and resources into their EOS Cinema line, including major send-in firmware updates, dual-pixel AF, etc. 

I believe the 1D X and 5D III are excellent cameras, and I love the 61pt AF system. I wish the RGB metering system was also included in the 5D III...I've had a couple tough times with 5D III metering where it kept exposing rather high, when it shouldn't have been. I finally switched to full manual mode to solve that problem, but I shouldn't have had to. But aside from the 61pt AF system, and the full RGB metering sensor of the 1D X...what other major STILL photography innovations has Canon created since the release of the 1Ds III and 5D II? Even the sensors in the 1D X and 5D III only had minor evolutionary changes, some could be considered cheats (i.e. thinning of the CFA dyes to make them more transparent). They aren't bad, they do their job well enough, but they aren't as good as the competitors. And the 1D X and 5D III not having significant IQ improvements isn't a bad thing. Canon really did listen to their customers with those two cameras, and delivered what their customer demanded. But the video innovations that have found their way into actual marketable products that Canon is selling far outnumber the number of still photography innovations that have actually found their way into a camera. Even on the video front...Canon's innovations are getting trounced by the likes of Red and friends.

However, the 7D II is years past it's due date. We are now WELL into the era of significantly improved sensor IQ. We are now WELL into the era of significantly improved DR. My point, in all of my comments, is that a touch UI is *not* the thing Canon _*NEEDS *_to focus in, and it shouldn't be the one feature that people use to decide whether to guy the 7D II or not. If the 7D II hits the streets with the same old "classic" Canon sensor technology...that, in my _honest _opinion, *is a MASSIVE FLUB!!* Not only a massive flub, but a dangerous flub, for a company that appears to be increasingly perceived as no longer caring about fundamental photography IQ, and instead is obsessed with video (and, as you say, maybe also selling the cheapest cameras possible to the greatest number of consumers....as far as I am concerned, if that's all Canon focuses on into the future...creating cameras with neat little features that attract the bottom up while ignoring the things their true photography customers are demanding, then I'm going to lose interest...because as someone who is very serious about their photography, I'm going to be left behind as the rest of the HIGH END photography technology from every other company moves past me at light speed.) Canon can't forget about their pros and serious photographers in an attempt to attract more bottom-rung consumers. They may rake in the dough...but they will lose their reputation as a photography company that actually cares about photography and image quality.

(BTW, your point about low level consumers being tied to their fancy touch screens and touch UIs...that also applies to high end consumers and professionals, which has also been a point I've been trying to make. Consumers are fickle, they jump from thing to thing, one year they may have a Canon Rebel, the next a Nikon, and the year after that some entry level Sony mirrorless. However, if Canon pisses off their long term, loyal customers who have been using their DSLRs, in the same way with the same menu system and same old "archaic" buttons and dials for YEARS, by doing anything to upset the fundamental functionality of their DSLRs...how do you think THAT would affect their bottom line...or worse, *their reputation*? It's more important that Canon keep what works with the professional level cameras (xD series), and fix the things their high end customers are demanding, than to filter low end features that fickle consumers demand up to the high end. If they do, fine...but it isn't what I, as a very serious photographer who cares very much about my image quality, believes they should be putting any amount of effort into. I would MUCH rather put every ounce of spare resource they have into competing on the core technological front, and give Canon users a major boost in sensor IQ across the board. The time has come for Canon to address more than just the bottom line.)


----------



## jrista (Aug 17, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> I think jrista's whole point was essentially that at THIS level of the Canon spectrum, cool features should play second fiddle to fundamentals. And I agree. If Canon is trying to make a paramount pro-level crop, keep pricing reasonable, and focus most consciously on the things that matter most to the target market they're after on the broadest scale possible....then they (and we) should be clamouring for solid and unmatched fundamentals. Maybe some analogies were misaligned but I appreciate his take on this. I've been Canon since I was five years old holding dad's A1. I still have it.
> 
> The 70D fills the upscale consumer market. The enthusiasts and the crossover videographers. Feature rich with touch and wifi.
> 
> ...



Yup, this is it exactly. As I said, I don't care if they do include a touch UI, SO LONG as that does not mean they don't deliver a significantly improved sensor, significantly improved AF system, and also an improved metering system. If the 7D II hits with a consumer-grabbing tough UI, and none of the above...well, I'd perceive that the same way so many other people perceive Canon these days...as being obsessed with video and consumerism, and having lost interest in the true photographer, in solid image quality from top to bottom.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 17, 2014)

I can't imagine Canon doesn't read to some degree forums like this one especially. If they don't then shame on them. The people here are the 80/20 rule. The 20% of their market that comprises 80% of the base avid user. I would like to believe that Canon is wise enough to know how to produce a camera properly for the given target market. With a 2000-2500 body, they should darn sure know what the criteria are. And I believe folks like me and jrista are a big chuck of that market. Give the pros a reason to keep those white lenses on the sidelines of Saints games and whatnot. If Canon gets too over zealous with pop culture features, the artists out there will continue their outward migration. 

The 5D3 was a killer piece. I expect the 7DX to keep within that pattern and deliver strong fundamentals that will be a harbinger of the next gen FF pro bodies. They need a Sony/Nikon wrecker. If there is any wisdom left at Canon, that's precisely what they plan to deliver through 2015


----------



## rame5hra0 (Aug 17, 2014)

All this discussion about multilayer sensor is mindless waste of time. CR got it wrong. Multilayer hybrid sensor was mentioned as a wishful speculation at the end of the article "What to expect from Canon ?" published on this site "http://thenewcamera.com/canon-7d-mark-ii-to-feature-multilayer-dual-pixel-af-sensor/"  . Which was promptly communicated to CR by a "Source" as a probable specification . So don't take this seriously. there wont be any groundbreaking sensor technology in 7D replacement. It will be a rehash of 70D sensor. Thats why this information (though stated as a known) is not rated by CR. :


----------



## Marauder (Aug 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has a problem. I know you do not believe that, but they do. It's a _perceptual _problem, and it could seriously affect their revenues and ability to fund the necessary R&D in the years to come. Such things have happened before, and often companies, even if they were on the top of the world, NEVER recover (Kodak?) So...seriously...touch screens and touch UIs?
> ...



I don't think the Kodak analogy is a red herring. Fuji faced the exact same issue as Kodak--the same peril. They changed and have innovated themselves into a respected market--a niche market perhaps, but still a respectable way of staying relevant in a changing world. And, even if you reject the Kodak analogy, the Nokia one remains absolutely relevant. 

I'm not one that really finds a deep issue with Canon IQ and I'm not one who supports the constant spread of DRivel. I've seen enough comparisons between the 5D3 and the D800 to make me conclude that the DR differences in the real world are not nearly as significant as various technical comparisons would have you believe. Generally, I find the Canon's tend to have a warmer colour reproduction which I prefer, but those differences seem to be much more academic than practical. 

Still, I think Jon is right that there is a "perceptual" threat to Canon's reputation as an innovative company. Although it may only be a perception, that in itself can be a threat to long term success. And it's not just here in the forum--it's on the review sites--the ones that many ordinary camera buyers go to when they're deciding what to purchase. Although the 18 Megapixel APS-C sensor was a solid piece of technology, from the 7D right through to the T5i, I think Canon elected to stay with it a bit too long. It was nice to see the 70D come out with something different--not just in resolution but also in technology (DPAF really did help give Canon some much needed credence again as an innovative company). 

The point has been raised that none of this has impacted Canon sales, or it hasn't seemed to. But I think Canon really needs to address that perception in order to _maintain _ that health. I think they need to show the more technically oriented camera crowd that they can really come up with an impressive sensor that can push boundaries in all aspects of performance. 

Judy from Tallahassee and Jimmy from Nantucket may not know or care that brand A has one stop of better dynamic range or that it has less noise at ISO ####--they're just buying the camera brand that the tech guy at __________ says has better quality images, or that the pros use at the Olympics. Currently the pros are using Canon, as much because the Canon system of lenses and bodies are largely unbeatable. But that could change in time if Canon doesn't comprehensively demonstrate both the ability and the _*willingness * _  to innovate. Canon stole the pro market right out from under Nikon--but that doesn't mean it's theirs forever. They need to restate their capacity to create leading edge tech in order to ensure they don't lose that advantage. 

In the end, what I guess I'm saying is that I hope that Canon will really wow the world with some new sensor technology. I think they already did manage that to a degree with DPAF, but they need to ensure it's not 'too little too late.' They need to build on that success and show the more technical users that they can still build a class leading IQ sensor. And keep ahead in the areas they already excel in, such as AF. The 61 point AF system on the 5D3/1DX is hard to beat, but they need to bring something that works as well (or better!) to the 7D2, and combine it with great IQ. 

Personally, I am optimistic. I think the 7D2 is going to be phenomenal for me in terms of AF, burst rate etc. I'd be more than happy with moderate improvement in IQ over the 70D, but I think it would be better for Canon overall if the IQ got a major boost--something that raises the bar for APS-C sensors---and that also translates into superior IQ for future FF sensors. 

Rainbow farting unicorns are optional.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> My point, in all of my comments, is that a touch UI is *not* the thing Canon _*NEEDS *_to focus in, and it shouldn't be the one feature that people use to decide whether to guy the 7D II or not. If the 7D II hits the streets with the same old "classic" Canon sensor technology...that, in my _honest _opinion, *is a MASSIVE FLUB!!*





jrista said:


> As I said, I don't care if they do include a touch UI, SO LONG as that does not mean they don't deliver a significantly improved sensor, significantly improved AF system, and also an improved metering system.


_Focus_ on a touchscreen? Including a touchscreen as a _causative factor_ in the exclusion of a totally redesigned sensor? The R&D resources needed to implement a touchscreen and touch UI, features which are present in several other dSLR models, are minimal, and are miniscule compared the R&D resources needed to develop a truly new sensor with dramatically improved IQ, which is a _*MAJOR*_ investment. Are you actually suggesting that Canon should not implement a touchscreen in the 7DII because those miniscule resources would have been better spent on sensor R&D? 

As for real photographers in the real world flocking to Nikon for the D800, the facts don't support that idea. Anecdotes ≠ data. I know one wedding photog who switched from the 5DII to the D800...because she got a great deal a Nikon package from another wedding photographer who was switching to the 5DIII. At the birding spots I frequent, there are more white lenses than black ones, and some of the black ones are now the Tamron 150-600 mounted on a Canon body.

Photography related internet forums are not representative of the buying public, at any level. The number of working pros who frequent such forums is pretty small. You mention DPR Forums, and that there is a 'strong and growing' group who are dissatisfied with Canon. Have you looked at the DPR 'gear list'? For 'Most Owned', Canon bodies outnumber Nikon by 65%. On the 'Most Wanted' list, Canon bodies outnumber Nikon, as do Sony and even Pentax. 




jrista said:


> However, if Canon pisses off their long term, loyal customers who have been using their DSLRs, in the same way with the same menu system and same old "archaic" buttons and dials for YEARS, by doing anything to upset the fundamental functionality of their DSLRs...how do you think THAT would affect their bottom line...or worse, *their reputation*?


Honestly, do you think that Canon would turn the back side of the 7DII into the EOS M, with a big touchscreen, a couple of buttons, and a little dial? Really? I don't get how including a touchscreen would 'upset the fundamental functionality' of a dSLR. Did Canon's addition of the Rate button to the 5DIII disrupt the workflow of those long term, loyal customers? (Hey, wait...maybe _that's_ why they switched to Nikon in droves! : ) The touchscreen is a feature. If you don't want to use it, don't. 




jrista said:


> Anyway, I'm out. Got other things to do.


Or not...


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 17, 2014)

I am a "real" photographer and I'd happily buy a 1 series that had a touch screen, I thought it was a gimmick but I really like the one on my EOS-M, of course it would need to offer more other stuff than just the touch screen, but for product work and real estate the touch screen is a useful feature.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> I'm actually referring to real photographers I know out in the real world.



Anecdotal evidence...meh. Any hard sales stats?



> The story is not the same on DPR forums, Fred Miranda, photo.net forums. There is a strong and growing presence of members on those forums who are, just like myself, wondering when Canon is going to do something about overall still photography image IQ.



Obsessive behavior fueled by Internet trolling and memes. It's not representative of more then a small sliver of the buying public who mostly think we're obsessive compulsive nerds to argue this stuff. (They're right.) It drove me nuts early on when the meme was Nikon sensors sucked and Canon were best (think 6-8 MP days when only Canon had FF), and it drives me nuts today with all the Exmor 5+ stop pushed shadow tests and 36 MP envy.

I would actually rank the 1DX, 5D3, and 6D a tiny bit better in high ISO then their Sony/Nikon counterparts. DR (actual, not DxO fantasy) is within a stop of Exmor across the board. Yeah, you can push Exmor shadows by an insane amount and not see any real noise, but your tonality is [email protected]%# by that point and you should have bracketed / blended any way. 

Scale and properly (lightly) sharpen a 22/24 MP FF image to 36 MP and you have a hard time finding any where that the 36 MP image is better. On a print? Do you have a loupe and an hour? (I say that having poured over 5D3, A7, and A7R RAWs recently trying to decide which A7 I want. It's no longer the A7R.)

Where Sony really has Canon beat right now is JPEG quality. The A7 JPEGs in the Imaging Resource Comparometer are stupid detailed and sharp. Makes the 5D3 look bad until you load up the RAWs in ACR. Already knew that but someone who has never shot/processed a 5D3 might not. Same thing with the 7D, fine detail is substantially better in ACR.

So given that Canon is right there on IQ, what are they supposed to do? I guess it would be nice if they eliminated the shadow noise completely and released a high rez FF. At least then the trolling would stop.



> However, the 7D II is years past it's due date.



How so? It looks to me like Nikon abandoned the segment and nothing else matches it overall even today.



> We are now WELL into the era of significantly improved DR.



Basically 12+ vs. 13+ stops. The DR meme is driven entirely by BS DxO tests that aren't even physically possible (i.e. claims of >14 stops from a 14-bit ADC).


----------



## unfocused (Aug 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > I think jrista's whole point was essentially that at THIS level of the Canon spectrum, cool features should play second fiddle to fundamentals. And I agree. If Canon is trying to make a paramount pro-level crop, keep pricing reasonable, and focus most consciously on the things that matter most to the target market they're after on the broadest scale possible....then they (and we) should be clamouring for solid and unmatched fundamentals. Maybe some analogies were misaligned but I appreciate his take on this. I've been Canon since I was five years old holding dad's A1. I still have it.
> ...



Okay. Time out guys.

Perhaps that was your intent Jon, but using condescending and inflammatory comments obscure that intent: 



> Comments like this make me think people don't know how to use a DSLR.





> Who in the world, ESPECIALLY pros, want to pull the camera away from their face so they can fiddle with a clunky touch screen?





> It's sad how smartphone mentality is invading every other area of our lives...





> in many cases, a touch screen is the primitive configuration device





> Touch screens on professional grade devices designed for use by people who know how to train muscle and procedural memory, and prefer instantaneous access to many features of the camera without the need to look at anything, or remove their eye from the viewfinder...are quite frankly the most confusing "innovation" I can think of.



If you are going to throw bombs, make rash generalizations and denigrate anyone who has a different opinion than you, then please, don't act like the wounded child when people call you on it and demonstrate clearly that you were mistaken.

Honestly, what's wrong with a simple acknowledgement of a mistake. There have been many times on this forum when I've been shown wrong (often by Neuro or Jon) and I've readily admitted it. Shouldn't we all be adult enough to just say: "I should have thought more about it before I went on a rant."

Really, the point of most of us who have been discussing touch screens seems to be one of questioning why a proven, mature piece of technology would be omitted from an upcoming camera body.

Neuro seems to be of the mind that that suggestion calls into question the accuracy of the rumor. I kind of hope he is right.

I have expressed surprise at it, because I can see the value of the option in my photography (particularly when trying to adjust a series of 600 RTs on the fly -- something that I can't do while looking through the viewfinder, but perhaps that's just because I don't have enough "muscle memory" to be able to set A-B:C ratios without being able to see the screen.)

In thinking about it, I simply asked if there might be some engineering reason why it would be excluded, since I can see many disadvantages to leaving this feature off, and frankly, no advantages to not having it. 

There has been a good, healthy discussion by many as to whether or not there is any engineering reason for leaving the feature off. That discussion has been both informed and informative. We will know soon enough whether the rumor is true or not.

Almost everyone has said it won't be a deal breaker (unless they shoot video) but it will be one thing that will be on many people's checklist. The suggestion that it is not a legitimate feature to consider, and that anyone who would find it significant is somehow less of a photographer, is incomprehensible to me; and what I take issue with.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 17, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> I really don't see the benefits of adding a touch screen. I prefer the tactile feedback from a button or a dial. Would a touch screen still work flawlessly on a cold winter day when it's snowing and the gloves are on? Would it work if I was out shooting in the rain?



if you were out shooting in the rain th touch screen would be the first to die.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 17, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> if you were out shooting in the rain th touch screen would be the first to die.



That's why ATM machines are always inside...oh wait, they're not.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 17, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> I can't imagine Canon doesn't read to some degree forums like this one especially. If they don't then shame on them. The people here are the 80/20 rule. The 20% of their market that comprises 80% of the base avid user. I would like to believe that Canon is wise enough to know how to produce a camera properly for the given target market. With a 2000-2500 body, they should darn sure know what the criteria are. And I believe folks like me and jrista are a big chuck of that market. Give the pros a reason to keep those white lenses on the sidelines of Saints games and whatnot. If Canon gets too over zealous with pop culture features, the artists out there will continue their outward migration.
> 
> The 5D3 was a killer piece. I expect the 7DX to keep within that pattern and deliver strong fundamentals that will be a harbinger of the next gen FF pro bodies. They need a Sony/Nikon wrecker. If there is any wisdom left at Canon, that's precisely what they plan to deliver through 2015



A sony/nikon killer? Canon already has the market share. No, what they need is a 7D replacement in between the 5d3 and 1dx that will fulfill the gap lost when the 1Div was discontinued. No matter what the 7dx has spec wise you can be certain it will be much better than the old 7d. How much better we will have to wait and see.

Canon already has enough consumer cameras and marketing this to appeal to consumers would just be bad marketing.


----------



## jrista (Aug 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > My point, in all of my comments, is that a touch UI is *not* the thing Canon _*NEEDS *_to focus in, and it shouldn't be the one feature that people use to decide whether to guy the 7D II or not. If the 7D II hits the streets with the same old "classic" Canon sensor technology...that, in my _honest _opinion, *is a MASSIVE FLUB!!*
> ...



First, I *never *said anyone was _flocking _to the D800. I did say that I've been encountering more photographers who I know who have move to Nikon cameras (usually the D800, I know another guy who moved to the D7100, and I know a number of new astrophotographers who have actually chosen Nikon D5000 series cameras instead of Canon cameras, given news that a Nikon hacker cracked their black point clipping and restored the full signal, all while still maintaining RN below 6e-), and some who have moved to Pentax cameras. That isn't "flocking"...however it is very *interesting *to me. _Don't put words in my mouth._ 

I am the first to say that portraiture and event photography isn't the largest group of photographers. I still believe that action photographers outnumber them ten to one at least. Doesn't change the fact that I used to see nothing but Canon cameras at the local state parks where I do most of my bird photography, and since I picked up my 5D III, in the couple dozen times I've been out, I haven't seen another Canon camera out there except my old friend David Stephens. Another bird photographer friend of mine, Kiomichi, was actually with Pentax, and he also moved to Nikon for better IQ. The amount of people that I personally know who are moving to different camera systems has been surprising...I figured some would, but it seems most are now. I've found that very interesting. And it's always the same thing...they want better IQ. These guys certainly aren't a statistical representation of all photographers...but it's a trend, it's a consistent change I've noticed in the photographers I know, many whom I've known for several years. 

I use the word TREND here specifically. I certainly don't think it's affected Canons' bottom line. NOT YET. But it's a trend. This isn't an existing change that has suddenly occurred to Canon. It's the perceptual threat that COULD, and in my opinion likely WILL, change Canon as we move on into the future. It's as Maurauder stated, the "average joe" that is currently Canon's bread and butter don't give a flyin rat's ass about the fundamental technology. All they care about is what reviewers say the most good things about what camera or brand...and then they go buy that camera or brand. THAT is the perceptual issue Canon has, THAT is the perceptual threat Canon faces. I mean, I don't know how many comparison reviews have been posted on our forums alone recently, but it seems like every one of them favors the Sony Exmor-based camera over the Canon. Canon cameras still get solid points for their strengths, but it still seems like the final recommendations are no longer the one-sided "Get a Canon Camera" that they used to be. The field is split, competition is tough, and the leading factor in that competition is that one freakin sensor brand! 

I know your stance on all this. I thought you were a little more open minded, and as much as I really DISLIKED ZigZagZoe (that guy was an arrogant prick), I think he found the one thing about you that is your greatest flaw, and he kept on pressing it: You are NOT open minded on this topic (and, you can be just as much an arrogant prick, too, when you choose to be!) To you, so long as Canon's bottom line keeps growing, so long as they sell more total units damn the consequences, your unwilling to see the potentially dangerous situation Canon is in.

No, nothing has happened yet. Nothing may happen at all. Perceptions *have *changed for many people, and future perceptions are ultimately going to be shaped by the people recommending cameras. I don't like DXO, I think they have some serious flaws in the core of their methodology...but people listen to them. I don't care much for a LOT of the YouTube video reviewers who have cropped up over the last several years...I think a lot of them are obviously biased, others seem to lack any kind of understanding of what it takes to perform an objective, unbiased review. But, the simple fact of the matter is...people listen to them. And, I'm happy to admit, as much as I like Canon...I STILL WANT BETTER IQ!!!  I _*KNOW *_I can't be the only die-hard Canon fan who wants my next Canon camera to have the same IQ as any camera that uses a Sony Exmor...I want it all, I want phenomenal high ISO IQ, and I want phenomenal low ISO IQ. I want a FLAT read noise curve, both for my terrestrial photography but even more so, for my astrophotography. I WANT BETTER IQ. I want faster frame rates for the 5D and 7D lines. I want better metering (I really want a full color RGB metering sensor that can detect the subject and perform better tracking...it's ok in the 7D and 5D III, so, so much better in the 1D X.) And I'm a Canon user! 

So, as I've said...unless Canon really starts demonstrating that they can not just create new technology, but employ it in actual commercial products, and SOON...I honestly cannot help but wonder if they are going to become the next Kodak, or Nikon, or Microsoft, or Minolta, or name any one of a hundred companies that either did not see the winds of change and change tack to catch them, or that simply ignored the winds of change, and just sat on their laurels and did nothing to really, truly compete with game-changing innovation from their competitors. 

I don't know if Canon is any of those things yet...we still need the 7D II, and probably the 5D IV (or whatever the next Canon DSLR is) to actually be released. But looking at the market landscape...knowing that so many of my photographer friends have moved from Canon to some other brand...hearing so many reviewers recommend cameras other than Canon...it all adds up to a bad smell. I think the 7D II is a critical release for them. I think they need to invest every single resource they have in improving their fundamentals. I honestly don't know exactly how much resources it would take to implement touch for the 7D II...however I'm sure it's more than minuscule. It's not just the hardware, it's the firmware implementation, the testing, that I believe takes up resources. I write software for a living. I've written software since I was eight years old for christ sake. If there is anything no company on earth understands, it's how much time it REALLY takes to design, implement, test, refine/debug, and release software. Most companies think they can crank out some complex new web site product for their customers in a month or two, and executives are always surprised when it takes five times longer and ten times the budget to actually accommodate all their ideas and features and deal with all the quality assurance loops and the whole nine yards of implementing a stable, reliable piece of software. 

So yes, I think that Canon could be using up a meaningful amount of resources by implementing a fully functioning touch UI for a professional grade device that has TONS more features than an EOS-M. I do not think that the amount of resources necessary to implement touch is on the same scale as developing new sensor technology...however developing new sensor technology permeates throughout the entirety of Canon's imaging enterprise, and is a FUNDAMENTAL aspect of their photographic tools, one that has a critical impact to IQ, just like AF, metering, frame rate, etc. I'm not necessarily saying Canon should move touch screen resources to sensors. However I do think touch screen resources could be put to better use on other firmware. Say, maybe, creating firmware for a new DIGIC that can produce ISO 400k that kicks the crap out of the A7s. OR maybe creating and improving firmware that improves their AF performance even more (having used the 5D III for months now, it still has some of that jitter that the 7D had with it's 19pt AF system...I REALLY think Canon needs to eliminate that problem. It's not as bad, but still present, and it's the single most annoying thing about Canon's DSLR usability.) 




neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, I'm out. Got other things to do.
> ...



Heh, dude...you just never stop. I actually left, did stuff, and came back. I never said I was out permanently, just that I had shit to do.


----------



## Straightshooter (Aug 17, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> I can't imagine Canon doesn't read to some degree forums like this one especially.



YOU MUST BE JOKING!?! RIGHT....??


----------



## Straightshooter (Aug 17, 2014)

Straightshooter said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > I can't imagine Canon doesn't read to some degree forums like this one especially.
> ...



UPDATE: I just came off the phone with Canon HQ in Tokyo, and they actually Do have A *PERMANENT, FULLY STAFFED "SILLY INPUT" DEPARTMENT*! I stand corrected... ;D


----------



## jrista (Aug 17, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> > We are now WELL into the era of significantly improved DR.
> 
> 
> 
> Basically 12+ vs. 13+ stops. The DR meme is driven entirely by BS DxO tests that aren't even physically possible (i.e. claims of >14 stops from a 14-bit ADC).



Actually, it's more like 10.x stops vs. 13.x stops. I agree, DXO's PrintDR numbers are BS. Just use DXO's ScreenDR numbers, which are _literal measurements_ taken directly from RAW, and a far more trustworthy number. Canon IS behind by about two stops. That is a FACTOR OF FOUR TIMES. DXO would have you believe it was closer to three stops, or EIGHT times...I agree, BS, and highly misleading. That doesn't change the fact that two stops is still a meaningful difference...always has been. 

I think the 7D II needs to close that gap. I truly do. Back to the original point that started this now lengthy debate...I think Canon needs to focus on making the 7D II close the IQ gap, particularly the sensor IQ gap, between Canon cameras and their competitors cameras, far more than they need to focus on adding a touch UI. In that context, I think people are out of their minds to be bitching and moaning about the point made in the first post of this thread that said there would not be a touch UI or WiFi. It doesn't matter if touch or wifi make it into the camera or not, I honestly could care less, those are such trivial features...so long as they make it in there *ALONGSIDE a radically improved sensor.*

Alright, I got more stuff to do (astrophotography stuff this time). Later chums.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 17, 2014)

Straightshooter said:


> Straightshooter said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...



A department flooded by DxO articles no doubt.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 17, 2014)

User interface design staff and sensor design staff are two very different groups with very different skills. One group is not going to be taking resources from the other.

At this point in time, it is a fairly trivial task to add a touchscreen to a camera. The hardware has already been designed and is in production. All the drivers have been designed and are in production. The user interface is 99 percent designed and is in production. All that remains is to play with some text and a couple fields.... It may actually be LESS work to put a touchscreen into the camera than to update an old design.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> It doesn't matter if touch or wifi make it into the camera or not, I honestly could care less...



How often do I need to tell people that they are in the minority? :




jrista said:


> I know your stance on all this. I thought you were a little more open minded...you can be just as much an arrogant prick, too, when you choose to be!...



I'm plenty open minded, I just happen to disagree with you. But you go right ahead and call me names, if you think that'll somehow help your case. The fact that you're seeing fewer Canon shooters means nothing, as I stated, anecdotes ≠ data. This perceptual problem you say Canon has, it's not reflected in the sales. Maybe that will change. More likely, Canon will release a 7DII/7DX that sells very well, even if it uses a sensor that still has less low ISO DR than SoNikon. People on the internet will complain about it, DxO will give it a low score, and customers will keep on not caring about that BS. For all that you claim people are unhappy with Canon and their sensors, and their 'bad reviews', looking at Amazon's Top Rated list, the first 8 places are Canon (including both the 6D and the 5DIII). How far down the list do you need to go to find a Nikon or Sony FF body? You can't, since there aren't any of either in the Top 100. 

BTW, I'm still waiting to hear how putting a touchscreen in the 7DII will "*upset the fundamental functionality*" of that dSLR.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 17, 2014)

jrista said:



> Actually, it's more like 10.x stops vs. 13.x stops.



Strange that those gray blocks outside of 10 stops are visible in a step wedge test. I wonder how that happens :



> Just use DXO's ScreenDR numbers, which are _literal measurements_ taken directly from RAW,



They may be literal measurements, but they are *not* of photographic dynamic range. DxO's model of how sensel measurements translate into DR is quite obviously flawed. And it is easy to demonstrate that their results are false with a Stouffer step wedge.

This same flaw in their model and thinking is no doubt the source of their demonstrably false belief that shrinking an image yields more DR.



> Canon IS behind by about two stops.



They are behind 1 stop or less depending on the models being compared. (The 7D is ancient so that's not a fair comparison. Canon's current 18 MP chips are behind a stop.)

A while back someone on DPReview posted samples from a Nikon and a Canon to demonstrate the amazing DR of Sony Exmor. Canon fans challenged the comparison so he provided RAWs. Guess what? He did the same thing some of the online tests are doing: he turned off NR completely for the Canon but not for the Nikon! 

Once the Canon file was intelligently processed the difference was minor. The Nikon file did have a bit more detail and less noise in the shadows. Turning NR off didn't even affect that very much (kudos Sony). But the Canon file had plenty of detail to work with, and the noise was not over bearing with intelligent application of NR. In a large print it would have been hard to tell them apart. Even the guy who opened the thread had to back peddle.

These were FF models, 5D3 and D800 if I remember correctly.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > > We are now WELL into the era of significantly improved DR.
> ...



once again, wrong wrong wrong, which is so bizarre because then you flip around and say that photosite density doesn't matter for noise and only sensor size does!!!! that is like saying 1+1=2 and no 1+1 does not equal 2 at the same time.

When you want to compare cameras the PrintDR measurement makes sense since it normalizes for photosite size difference and compares noise at the same scale between sensors having different densities, ScreenDR sure that tells you what the difference is at 100% view and what you can get if you use the full resolution, but it is not a fair way to compare since it penalizes cameras the more MP they have and it can lead you to think that a very high MP camera with amazing sensor and readout tech might give worse images than one with terrible sensor and other tech but very, very few MP, when if you compared them fairly, at the same scale, the one that measured worse on ScreenDR might actually give a much better result.

And to the other guy they normalize to 8MP so if a camera has a lot more than 8MP it can end up with more than the number of bits the file has per pixel. Sure if you want to get what you can out of the each original element in the file you can't get more than the 12bits or 10bits or 14bits or 16bits or whatever for the particular camera, but you don't care about that when comparing you just want to compare them at the same scale. If you compare the high MP camera to the low MP camera and want to see how it does at the same scale you need to first filter out all of the ultra high frequency noise and average it to a lower frequency scale and them compare that noise which now maxes to the same highest frequency the lower MP cam has. Then you can compare fairly between the two cameras. Now if you want to know if camera B will do better than A if you use camera B at full res then yeah use ScreenDR but don't forget that even if it then does worse by those numbers that doesn't mean it is a worse sensor since if you compare them at the same scale it might well do much better. So you get the choice higher res but perhaps worse noise or same res but perhaps much better noise.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> How often do I need to tell people that they are in the minority? :



I'm not sure, but I believe it involves an exponent.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > > We are now WELL into the era of significantly improved DR.
> ...



once again, wrong wrong wrong, which is so bizarre because then you flip around and say that photosite density doesn't matter for noise and only sensor size does!!!! that is like saying 1+1=2 and no 1+1 does not equal 2 at the same time.

When you want to compare cameras the PrintDR measurement makes sense since it normalizes for photosite size difference and compares noise at the same scale between sensors having different densities, ScreenDR sure that tells you what the difference is at 100% view and what you can get if you use the full resolution, but it is not a fair way to compare since it penalizes cameras the more MP they have and it can lead you to think that a very high MP camera with amazing sensor and readout tech might give worse images than one with terrible sensor and other tech but very, very few MP, when if you compared them fairly, at the same scale, the one that measured worse on ScreenDR might actually give a much better result.

And to the other guy they normalize to 8MP so if a camera has a lot more than 8MP it can end up with more than the number of bits the file has per pixel. Sure if you want to get what you can out of the each original element in the file you can't get more than the 12bits or 10bits or 14bits or 16bits or whatever for the particular camera, but you don't care about that when comparing you just want to compare them at the same scale. If you compare the high MP camera to the low MP camera and want to see how it does at the same scale you need to first filter out all of the ultra high frequency noise and average it to a lower frequency scale and them compare that noise which now maxes to the same highest frequency the lower MP cam has. Then you can compare fairly between the two cameras. Now if you want to know if camera B will do better than A if you use camera B at full res then yeah use ScreenDR but don't forget that even if it then does worse by those numbers that doesn't mean it is a worse sensor since if you compare them at the same scale it might well do much better. So you get the choice higher res but perhaps worse noise or same res but perhaps much better noise.

(and since in reality you might use advanced NR and not this brute force method, if anything DxO might slightly hurt the higher MP cameras! and NOT at all give the higher MP cams such BS boost)

(I mean image this, cameras A and B are both FF, camera A delivers 36MP and uses D800 tech and camera B delivers 0.25MP and uses 10D sensor tech and now if you compare them by 100% view DR (i.e. ScreenDR) it says that camera B gives scores a much higher DR score and so you mean to tell me that you'd rather be using a FF camera based off of 10D sensor than one based off of D800 sensor tech when you are shooting a high DR scene?? Yeah maybe B delivers a 0.25MP image with better DR than a 0.25MP CROP from camera A would deliver but why are you comparing a 0.25MP CROP from camera A to the FF camera B? You mean to tell me 18x12" print from camera B would look better from camera B than an 18x12" print from camera A?? It wouldn't, but if you tried to compare just using the ScreenDR score that is what you might mistakenly think. But if you compare them using the so-called 'BS' PrintDR measurement it would right away tell you that the camera A print would work out better.)


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 17, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> And to the other guy they normalize to 8MP so if a camera has a lot more than 8MP it can end up with more than the number of bits the file has per pixel.



*That is not photographic dynamic range.*

I get what they're doing. Shrink the image. Noise and therefore black point are lower. "Oh my we have more dynamic range!"

No. Photographic dynamic range is the range over which you have *captured detail.* Shrinking an image does not create detail, it throws it away!

Simple thought experiment. Shoot 8x10 Velvia 50, a 6 stop (if that) film. Scan. Shrink down to the scanner dimensions for a 35mm piece of film. Did you magically turn Velvia into a 10 stop film? If you shot a step wedge, did more steps become a shade of gray rather then pure black or white? 

Obviously not.

Makes me wonder if the guys responsible for this part of their test suite even own cameras.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, it's more like 10.x stops vs. 13.x stops.
> ...



see my post above and see the crazy paradoxes you arrive it if you insist on comparing cameras using ScreenSNR and ScreenDR (unless of course you'd rather think a 0.25MP FF camera using 10D sensor tech is better than a 36MP FF camera using D800 tech or a 40MP camera using 5D3 tech) 

and see Fred Miranda site where a long time Canon fan and site owner compared 5D3 and D800 and found the same large difference and went out and bought an A7D supplement his 5D3


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > And to the other guy they normalize to 8MP so if a camera has a lot more than 8MP it can end up with more than the number of bits the file has per pixel.
> ...



If you shrink it down to 35mm film size you are also shrinking everything about it down and all the grain and noise and details become much smaller and if you then find the distance that is the smallest that the 35mm film was resolving and then avg all the little stuff on the shrunken 8x10" frame over that smallest scale the 35mm film was resolving then you get a cleaner signal at that scale. Now yes you get less detail too so you don't get any magic compared to the original 8x10" but you can now compare fairly to the 35mm if you are talking DR and SNR.

Imagine this, make a contact print from an 8x10" film and a 35mm film both using the same film stock and the bice big 8x10" contact print you can see a ton more detail than from the 35" but yeah you see the noise kinda noise and DR. But then use an enlarger in reverse to contact print the 8x10" film to cover a 35mm area of the paper and stand a distance so you just make out the smallest details that the 35mm film contact print made and then you'd see the same details from the 8x10" shrunken to 35mm contact print but less noise than in the one from the 35mm film.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Now if you want to know if camera B will do better than A if you use camera B at full res then yeah use ScreenDR



Say, for example...if you're shooting RAW? Some time back, I asked someone (you?) to point out a RAW converter that operates on downscaled images. I'm still waiting...

BTW, last time I checked DxO had swapped the Screen and Print DR values/plots for the D810.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Simple thought experiment. Shoot 8x10 Velvia 50, a 6 stop (if that) film. Scan. Shrink down to the scanner dimensions for a 35mm piece of film. Did you magically turn Velvia into a 10 stop film? If you shot a step wedge, did more steps become a shade of gray rather then pure black or white?
> ...



So, in other words...*no*, downscaling the image would not make more of the steps on the wedge fall within the DR when the picture was taken. Thanks for your definitive answer. :


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 17, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> If you shrink it down to 35mm film size you are also shrinking everything about it down and all the grain and noise and details become much smaller and if you then find the distance that is the smallest that the 35mm film was resolving and then avg all the little stuff on the shrunken 8x10" frame over that smallest scale the 35mm film was resolving then you get a cleaner signal at that scale.



You do not get more detail, therefore you do not get more photographic dynamic range. Blocked up shadows and highlights will still be blocked up. On a step wedge the same number of steps will be gray, black, and white.



> and see Fred Miranda site where a long time Canon fan and site owner compared 5D3 and D800 and found the same large difference and went out and bought an A7D supplement his 5D3



I would rather see his RAW files. My bet is that the difference is not as dramatic as whatever processing led him to believe it was.

That's not saying I fault anyone for wanting an Exmor sensor. Heaven knows I've spent extra $$$ for small gains. And processing can be easier with Exmor. But Canon is not that far behind, and this DxO nonsense is out of hand.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, in other words...*no*, downscaling the image would not make more of the steps on the wedge fall within the DR when the picture was taken. Thanks for your definitive answer. :



Now I'm not so sure Neuroanatomist. In scaling his answer down to one word the answer became bold. An increase in DR? ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Now if you want to know if camera B will do better than A if you use camera B at full res then yeah use ScreenDR
> ...



Holy cow, I know you know better dude.

Nobody does that since for Bayer you run into complications and would have to at least do that step first and for foveon again why do it at that step? But you could, just have it downscale the foveon RAW data first and then do it.

But that tangent is besides the point as you well know, so stop being a troll. I know you are not that feeble-minded of a scientist so stop trying to trick people with your games.

Or dare try to explain to me why you think a 3x5" print from a 4MP FF camera using 10D tech would deliver a better results from a 36MP FF camera using D800 tech.

Or since you are such a Canon zealot, care to explain how a 4x6" print from Nikon's D700 should look superior to one from Canon's 5D3? (maybe the MP count difference is not quite enough to make the screensnr and screendr imply that would be the case, not sure off-hand, but if not then image the comparison a 4x6" print from a 2MP camera using D700 tech to one from a 1DX? Care to explain how the 2MP Nikon using D700 tech gives a better image in terms of DR and SNR than one from the 1DX???


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > So, in other words...*no*, downscaling the image would not make more of the steps on the wedge fall within the DR when the picture was taken. Thanks for your definitive answer. :
> ...



Perhaps merely a decrease in DRivel...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > If you shrink it down to 35mm film size you are also shrinking everything about it down and all the grain and noise and details become much smaller and if you then find the distance that is the smallest that the 35mm film was resolving and then avg all the little stuff on the shrunken 8x10" frame over that smallest scale the 35mm film was resolving then you get a cleaner signal at that scale.
> ...



Your problem is trying to compare high frequency noise to noise of lower frequency as if they were the same thing. You are trying to filter out the high freq detail but then acting like you need to still keep all that higher frequency noise. If you want to compare what you'd get from each film printed to the same size and viewed from the same distance you have to normalize your measured numbers.




> > and see Fred Miranda site where a long time Canon fan and site owner compared 5D3 and D800 and found the same large difference and went out and bought an A7D supplement his 5D3
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well his files show reasonably similar to what directly measuring the raw shows, maybe there is some difference due to raw converters cooked in for each, but the DxO measured difference is large and the typical comparison using converter looks large, maybe it makes it a bit off this way or that, but if you were to program a raw converter to ahndle the nkon and canon files the exact same ways then you'd see the same difference as DxO measures, which is pretty large.

So no the DxO measurements for SNR and DR and such are not out of hand at all, only the fanboy nonsense is. Now if you want to say their OVERALL sensor scores or many of their lens scores are out of hand, OK, that is fair game, maybe even their overall high iso rating is fair game to pick at since the way they weight things is perhaps a bit suspect, but don't call all the little direct measurements all out of hand made up nonsense.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Yet another deep answer. When you can't trick 'em you insult 'em. One almost wonders if you don't own some huge amount of Canon stock or what your deal is.

You'd make a great politician, willing to say whatever it takes and obfuscate as needed and smart enough to know how to do so.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2014)

It's simple – downsampling an image does not recover data that were clipped at capture. If the scene DR exceeds the DR of the sensor, those data are lost, and no amount of downsampling will bring them back. Period. 



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> You'd make a great politician



Seriously, there's no call for such grevious insults!


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 17, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Your problem is trying to compare high frequency noise to noise of lower frequency as if they were the same thing.



I'm not comparing noise at all. Clipped shadows and highlights do not magically reveal detail because the noise level went down. There is no detail to reveal at that point.

DxO's definition of dynamic range is the definition some guy looking at an oscilloscope might come up with if he had never touched a camera. It is not photographic dynamic range.



> Well his files show



Where can they be downloaded?


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > You'd make a great politician
> ...



Wow...a politician...that's worse then insulting someone's mother!


----------



## Botts (Aug 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> My point, in all of my comments, is that a touch UI is *not* the thing Canon _*NEEDS *_to focus in, and it shouldn't be the one feature that people use to decide whether to guy the 7D II or not. If the 7D II hits the streets with the same old "classic" Canon sensor technology...that, in my _honest _opinion, *is a MASSIVE FLUB!!*



I wonder though, from a business perspective, just how groundbreaking you (as Canon) want this new sensor to be? If it is groundbreaking and truly amazing, how many sales of the 5D3 and 1Dx are sacrificed? Not because those customers would go to the 7D, but because they would hold off for the 5D3 and 1Dx's successors.

I think we'll see a toned down new tech and then a relatively quick upgrade to the full-frame bodies with the full fledged new tech.



dtaylor said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



As an actual politician: Ouch.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Your problem is trying to compare high frequency noise to noise of lower frequency as if they were the same thing.
> ...



Don't know. Maybe he still has them, maybe if you PM him, maybe he erased then already or doesn't want to bother.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



OK, OK, I apologize, I shouldn't get sucked down the level of the defenders of the honor.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's simple – downsampling an image does not recover data that were clipped at capture. If the scene DR exceeds the DR of the sensor, those data are lost, and no amount of downsampling will bring them back. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



all we are trying to do is make a fair relative comparison between two cameras

This is a bit different but imagine a 32bit CD had a bunch of noise, tons, in the least bit and some in the next two least sig and was perfect otherwise and they measured the noise above the base there at 32bit scale. And then they measured an 8bit CD that had a little noise in it's LSB and none otherwise. And then they pretended the LSBits for the 32bit CD are the same as the 3 least sig bits on the 8bit CD and compared them directly, that;s kinda like ScreenDR. And PrintDR is kinda like if they realize that you can't over the three lowest bits of the 32bit CD over the 3 lowest bits of the 8bit CD and then say man the lowest three bits on that 32 bit CD are looking so random compared to the lowest three on that 8bit CD man that 32bit CD stinks! When if you first applied a bit shift to align like bit to like bit to normalize it you'd see the 32bit CD was giving a perfect signal over all of the 8bits the 8bit CD was storing while the 8bit CD was putting noise on it's least bit.

How is it fair to compare the LSBits of the 32bit CD to the 8bit CD's 3 least sig bits as if they were the same scale and same thing?

I mean if all you want to use to relatively compare cameras using DxO ScreenDR I can go grab me some Canon 10D tech and make a 1000 PIXEL (not mega, just pixel) sensor out of it and it will get a much better ScreenDR score than the 1DX will. So gee I guess that 1DX really stinks! Such terrible DR, I open a file from both and view each at 100% and I see so much more noise over 1000 pixels on the 1DX file, but that 10D tech camera man those 1000 pixels look perfect! But no because why are you trying to compare a 1000 pixel crop from the 1DX image to the complete 1000 pixel image from the 10D-derived monster?


----------



## x-vision (Aug 17, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> ... Clipped shadows and highlights do not magically reveal detail because the noise level went down. There is no detail to reveal at that point.
> 
> DxO's definition of dynamic range is the definition some guy looking at an oscilloscope might come up with if he had never touched a camera. It is not photographic dynamic range.



You are both right and wrong at the same time ???.

Yes, downsizing does nothing for clipped shadows and highlights. 

OTOH, though, the one and only definition of DR in signal processing is basically the ratio of max signal vs noise floor.
By downsizing, you are lowering the noise floor - and voila, DR gets improved too.
That's per the one and only definition of DR, that is 8). 
Clipped shadows and highlights remain clipped.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2014)

The way DR is measured here you simple compare max signal to the noise floor and the max here is just the perfect white, channel 100% blown, max well value. And we just want to compare the stnd deviation about the blackpoint at the same energy scale when comparing the cameras relatively to each other. In this case the chose something like an 8MP scale What DR in this way it can deliver at 100MP scale is lower than it can deliver at 10MP scale. The max white point stays always the same value and the noise about the blackpoint gets lower as you filter out the higher energy scales of noise as you normalize it to a lower and lower target point.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Your problem is trying to compare high frequency noise to noise of lower frequency as if they were the same thing.
> ...



nobody is clipping highlights here, we take max signal as pure saturated channel.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2014)

Botts said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > My point, in all of my comments, is that a touch UI is *not* the thing Canon _*NEEDS *_to focus in, and it shouldn't be the one feature that people use to decide whether to guy the 7D II or not. If the 7D II hits the streets with the same old "classic" Canon sensor technology...that, in my _honest _opinion, *is a MASSIVE FLUB!!*
> ...



Not really, since the 5D4 surely won't be 12fps + and the 1DX will offer FF and who knows what else extra.
SO if you want 12fps+ you can't wait on the 5D4 and the 1DX maybe you could wait but will you have the extra thousands to get the 7D2 in FF format plus some more bells and whistles and bulk? Many won't.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 17, 2014)

x-vision said:


> By downsizing, you are lowering the noise floor - and voila, DR gets improved too.



In practice, you will see this as cleaner shadows in the downsized image. 
So, downsizing has practical value too; it's not just a synthetic measure that DxO uses 
(even though DxO's normalized DR is in fact synthetic).


----------



## jrista (Aug 17, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



I think I may begin to see part of our disconnect. Maybe a little clarification of what I think of when I say some of these things would help.

So, first off, I do believe that only sensor size really matters from a fundamental IQ standpoint. I believe that "noise" is relative to sensor size. That's a fairly general statement, maybe I've been lax in my specificity in the past. So, to clarify this first point...I believe that photon shot noise is relative to sensor size. Very specifically, I believe that the total amount of photon shot noise, which affects the signal top to bottom, from the highlights to the shadows, which is an intrinsic part of the real image signal itself, is fundamentally relative to total sensor area. 

In that respect, I believe larger sensors will always outperform smaller sensors given similar technology, for identical framing. Assuming non-similar technology, I believe that it is possible, for a short period of time, for a sensor of smaller area to outperform a sensor of larger area...but only so long as the larger sensor's technology is inferior. I believe the generational gap between the small and large sensor would need to be fairly large for the smaller sensor to outperform a larger sensor...within a single generation, I honestly do not believe that any smaller sensor would outperform a larger sensor in terms of overall IQ.

I believe this, because if you frame a subject identically in frames of different physical sizes, the larger the frame, the more total light you gather. That's it. I don't really think that needs any further qualification. More light, better IQ. It's better if you don't normalize, it's better if you do normalize. More total light gathered per unit area of subject, better IQ. It's as simple as that.
---

Alright, second. Read noise. I consider read noise to be a fairly distinct form of noise, different in nature and impact than photon shot noise. I do NOT believe that read noise has anything to do with pixel size or sensor size. I believe read noise has to do with the technology itself. I believe read noise is a complex form of noise, contributed to from multiple sources, some of them electronic (i.e. high frequency ADC unit), some of them material in nature (i.e. sensor bias noise, once you average out the random noise components, is fixed....as it partly results from the physical material nature of the sensor itself, it's physical wiring layout, etc.) I believe read noise affects overall image quality, but in a strait up comparison of two images from two cameras with identical sensor sizes, read noise in an invisible quantity. It doesn't really matter how much you scale your images, whether you scale them up or down, whether you normalize or not. Before any editing is performed, read noise is an invisible deep shadow factor, it cannot usually be seen by human eyes.

In this respect, two landscape photos of the same scene taken with different full frame cameras are all largely going to look the same. Photon shot noise is going to be the same, it may just be more finely delineated by a sensor with smaller pixels. Normalize them all, without any other edits, and you aren't going to notice much of any difference between the images. The most significant differences are likely to be firmware/setting related...a Daylight white balance setting will probably differ between cameras (one may be slightly warm, another slightly cold), small nuances of exposure may differ between cameras (one may slightly overexpose, another may slightly underexpose), there may be nuanced differences in color rendition that cater to different personal preferences. 

When it comes to read noise, to me, that is all about editing latitude. Because it's a deep shadow thing, it doesn't manifest until you start making some significant exposure adjustments. You have to lift shadows at very low ISO by several stops before the differences between a camera with more sensor+ADC DR and a camera with less sensor+ADC DR really start to manifest. Those differences only matter at ISO 100 and 200, they are significantly diminished by ISO 400, and above that the differences between cameras are so negligible as to be nearly meaningless...sensor size/photon shot noise totally dominate the IQ factor.

I do believe that normalization is important to keep the frequency of photon shot noise, which is the primary visible source of noise in images that have not been edited, at the same frequency for comparison purposes. I do believe that normalization will and should show differences between larger and smaller sensors. I do not believe, however, that normalization of a non-pulled image is going to have any impact on how deep the blacks appear to an observer. I believe the only thing that can actually measure the differences in the deep shadows, where read noise exists, are software algorithms. I do believe that having lower read noise means you have better editing latitude when editing a RAW image in a RAW editor, and that for the purposes of editing, lower read noise, which leads to increased dynamic range (primarily by restoring what would have otherwise been lost to read noise in the shadows) is a good thing, and something that can and does certainly improve certain types of photography. This is the fundamental crux of my belief that DXO's PrintDR numbers are very misleading, and why I prefer to refer to their ScreenDR numbers...as the increase in DR that you gain from having lower read noise is only really of value WHEN editing a RAW image and lifting shadows. Otherwise, I really don't care about comparing cameras within a "DXO-specific context"...I care about comparing cameras based on what you can actually literally do with them in real life. (I KNOW you disagree with this one, but we should just agree to disagree here, because neither of us is ever going to win this argument. )

That is my stance on these things. I am pretty sure you'll disagree in one way or another, and that's ok. However I do not believe that my assessment of these things is fundamentally wrong. I believe it may be different than your assessment, or DXO's assessment for that matter. But I do not believe I have a wrong stance on this subject. I separate photon shot noise and the impact it has on overall IQ (which is significantly greater) from read noise, and the impact it has on the editing latitude you might experience when adjusting exposure of a RAW image in a RAW editor at an unscaled, native image size.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 17, 2014)

Botts said:


> I think we'll see a toned down new tech and then a relatively quick upgrade to the full-frame bodies with the full fledged new tech.



Yup. If a 7DII is announced (the 5DIV is also a possibility, mind you), it will _at best_ have the ISO of the 5DII.
So, the 6D and 5DIII will still remain better. 
The new tech should bring more substantial DR improvements, though. 

And like I said, don't rule out the possibility of a high-resolution 5DIV at Photokina.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 17, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> The way DR is measured here you simple compare max signal to the noise floor and the max here is just the perfect white, channel 100% blown, max well value.



And this is *not* _photographic dynamic range._



x-vision said:


> OTOH, though, the one and only definition of DR in signal processing...



...is not the same as the one and only definition of DR in photography. 

Appreciate your post, you get why there's confusion, just trying to illustrate for those who insist DxO DR measurements have any bearing on reality.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > It's simple – downsampling an image does not recover data that were clipped at capture. If the scene DR exceeds the DR of the sensor, those data are lost, and no amount of downsampling will bring them back. Period.
> ...



Andyes it's true you don't some capture signal and chop off bits and have more SNR as you chopped signal and noise at the same rate. And you don't get some normalized value when looking at your full RAW. You get what it gives. But we are trying to compare things relative to one another here. Take a camera with great tech and 36MP and one with poor tech an 3MP, print both to the same size and view from the distance and the great tech 36MP print probably looks better than the one from the poor tech 3MP camera even if you were to print a 3MP crop from the 36MP camera and that would look rough in comparison. When they measure a middle gray SNR ratio they are just measuring about a perfect solid scale invariant middle gray and measuring the deviations and then normalizing the scale so they are comparing the deviation at the same scale of detail. And if you sample that down the deviation from the solid middle gray goes down and the number goes up and they just want to make sure they are measuring that deviation from the perfect gray swatch at the same frequency for the noise. 

They are not saying that if you take a photo of some complex scene that if you downscale you reduced noise while magically keeping the same complete signal, that is something else. If you do that it looks less and less noisy but it also looks less and less with the spatial details.


----------



## Straightshooter (Aug 17, 2014)

*Makes you wonder indeed why canon wouldn't invest time and money to be checking websites like CR full time so they can read all these 'pearls of wisedom'?!* :


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > The way DR is measured here you simple compare max signal to the noise floor and the max here is just the perfect white, channel 100% blown, max well value.
> ...



But it DOES have bearing on reality. And even if you don't believe and numbers of definitions or whatnot, I mean just look at the images, it tells the tale that they do have a bearing on reality.

Now if you insist on viewing everything at 100% and comparing everything camera at the highest resolution it can do and then comparing noise and DR like that then yeah the Print stuff has no bearing on reality. But why are you trying to compare cameras like that in regards to declaring one better or worse for noise and DR? That is not fair IN REALITY. It is OK if you jsut want to know how things we seem with the new camera compared to your old one if you always chose to take full advantage of the resolution increase or if you just want to know how it would seem if you took full advantage of its res. That is fine and fair. But it's not fair to say that it does worse for SNR and DR, since if you compared them to the same delivered detail it might very well do better than the old camera even if it did worse when delivering more detail.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 17, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> ... just trying to illustrate for those who insist DxO DR measurements have any bearing on reality.



Well, as LetTheRightLensIn said, it DOES have a bearing on reality.
You get cleaner shadows, which does contribute to better photographic DR as well.


----------



## Roo (Aug 17, 2014)

Straightshooter said:


> *Makes you wonder indeed why canon wouldn't invest time and money to be checking websites like CR full time so they can read all these 'pearls of wisedom'?!* :



I do know a couple of local Canon reps that come on here when they need a laugh ;D


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 17, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> But it DOES have bearing on reality. And even if you don't believe and numbers of definitions or whatnot, I mean just look at the images, it tells the tale that they do have a bearing on reality.



I have looked at the images. Then I've openly laughed at DxO's estimates of DR.

One of my pet peeves is when people endlessly theorize where they should be simply observing. Shoot a transmission step wedge in RAW and develop with ACR. Canon sensors will not land in the 10.x stop range, but the 12.x stop range. Sony Exmor will land in the 13.x stop range, not the 14.x range. It doesn't matter what scale you view the step wedge at.



> Now if you insist on viewing everything at 100%...



This has nothing to do with _photographic dynamic range._


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 17, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Straightshooter said:
> 
> 
> > Straightshooter said:
> ...



Uhh no not really. I wasn't trying to imply they constantly monitor every forum all the time. However, any wise company is going to pay attention to it's most avid users and target audience. Canon Rumors seems to be a fairly well established source of such an audience. Does that mean they read and consider every word? Certainly not. However, canon and every larger company out there finds its own ways of keeping some basic vitals on its market. Obviously, pro level Canon users are very interested in seeing things like higher DR, high MP sensors to compete with Nikon (regardless of market share), etc.... All things discussed here. So yes, forums like this do play into the thought process, although I did not mean necessarily anything specific. How do you know what to build next if you're not listening to what the market demands?


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 17, 2014)

x-vision said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > By downsizing, you are lowering the noise floor - and voila, DR gets improved too.
> ...



But this isn't dynamic range, it's latitude, and these two are confused, especially when comparing Canon vs Sony Exmor. The actual dynamic range is not as dramatically different as the Exmor missionaries like to champion, but the Exmor does have considerably more _latitude_ in the extreme low lights. However most of us never have a need to lift low lights to the extent it becomes a problem with Canon. 

So I would say down sampling does have a slight advantage in _latitude_, but this has nothing to do with dynamic range. 

And a further point: the _latitude_ of the latest Canon FF sensors is significantly better than the older tech, even at base ISO, so those that say there has been no improvement in 'IQ' at base ISO of Canon FF are, IMO, wrong. 

I can't speak for the 5DIII because I only have very limited experience with that camera, but the 6D has as much more _latitude_ over the 5DII as the 5DII has over the original 5D.


----------



## RickWagoner (Aug 17, 2014)

Marauder said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



HAHA thanks for sharing your tangent. i shared a bit on my mind in the form of tangents already here. You people seem nice with them, thank you...you people make a great forum here. Very respecting of others opinions and open to talk about them in a nice way. 

To answer your question about the glass itself and a few people already answered nicely. All Glass has a break point, it is where the weakness is. And all modern glass has a strong side also. For Example the Sapphire Glass used in watches are pretty much the best glass to be scratch resistant, it is said only a diamond can scratch it. The problem with the Sapphire glass on a watch (which is called the watches Crystal) is that it is very brittle. If it gets hit anywhere on the side or middle the rite way it shatters. This is why most watch companies protect the sides with the bezel design..anyway..

Gorilla Glass has a high flex rate before it snaps, Highly scratch resistant, all while being super thin. The break point is on the sides. With an iPhone you have the glass with a clean side, meaning nothing is protecting the sides of the glass unlike the a bezel on a watches Crystal. So if you drop the iPhone without any protection and it hits the glass side first it probably will break. The weird thing is if you put anything around the glass it will protect it from happening, look up the Apple iPhone Bumper, it is a thin piece of plastic that actually protects the break point and it works amazingly! If the phone lands flat on the glass it won't break, even if you sit on the phone the glass will bend but not break easily..this is the strength of it. 

I can not find much info on what Canon uses but i have worked with a few displays from cameras to guess that the technology is very old..super old actually. Most Camera companies put the money in high resolution displays that are cheaper in terms of strength. It is not like someone is going to sit on the camera enough to bend the entire device and stress the glass, and most cameras have lots of protection on the sides from those would be weaker points. The problem with cheaper strength glass is it scratches easily...very easily. It amazes me that someone who buys a 1Dx puts a crappy plastic cover to protect the display, it should not need that at the price the camera is..but this is Canon. Canon is more of an incredible optics company, not a company that is fast with adopting newer better parts to replace the old weak stuff...they're no Apple. Like i said I give Canon credit for the touch screen and wifi cameras they have come out with anyway..at least they are doing something..unlike Nikon. 

Hope this explains it better.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 17, 2014)

sounds good I hope the AF is based on the 61 pt system if it doesn't have a built in grip then I'll seriously consider buying one


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 17, 2014)

jrista said:


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


I disagree with you. The total light gathered matters more than sensor size and if you give the same amount of light to different sized sensors, the resulting noise is very similar. Tony Northrup had a great video on that and showed how ISO is skewed because of sensor size.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 17, 2014)

RickWagoner said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > RickWagoner said:
> ...



Thank you for your coherent explanation Rick. So (and correct me if I'm misinterpreting you) if I'm understanding you, if Canon is not able to implement a touch screen with the required level of toughness in the 7D2, it is because they are relying on an older technology than is potentially available to them (in the form of Gorilla Glass. 

That would also dovetail with my own theory that they _may have _ tried to implement a touch screen on prototypes and had it fail from a durability standpoint, if they did not go for a more modern option. At that point it may have been a case of either abandoning a touch screen altogether, or trying to make a new one out of more modern materials--which would have cost more time and money. In essence, a 'no go' on the touch screen might have been inevitable in order to meet product deadline. I also wonder if cost is a factor. Would a solution based around Gorilla glass cost significantly more than existing camera screen tech? If so, it might have been sacrificed in order to put money towards more fundamental needs for the product, such as new sensor tech, AF system, processing power etc. For a company making Smartphones, a touch screen that can handle a person's pocket is an *absolute and non-negotiable need*--for a camera company, it may be desirable, but it isn't strictly necessary for the product to succeed--especially for the 7D2's target market. (It WILL be required for a DSLR that is primarily for Video however!)


----------



## unfocused (Aug 17, 2014)

This has been a nice discussion about the durability of glass, but I have to wonder: what's the difference between the glass used for a touch screen and the glass used for the ordinary LCD display on the back of every DSLR?

If it is the durability of the glass that's an issue, how would it be any different if a touch screen is implemented versus the traditional display?


----------



## RichM (Aug 17, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Since we are all having fun predicting...
> 
> 7D should be less expensive than a 1D BUT - Canon has become greedy the last couple years and they are playing this launch a lot like Apple. They are trying to get the market in a frenzy by holding back info and tempting everyone with small tidbits of data. So it will be expensive I'm afraid. I predict $2799 to $2999. Half the the price of the 1DX and close but not above the 5D3. I would love it to be less but from what they are saying, it won't be. And people will still buy it, esp if it actually works and lives up to the hype by 80% or more. (Like the 5D3 did.)
> 
> ...



I have to agree with the sentiment here. I want an improved 7d still camera and do not really care about video (better IQ and ISO perf, with at least the same speed). If the camera is under $2500, I'll likely buy. If not, I still like my current 7d/5d3 pairing.

For what its worth: I pre-ordered a 7d2 at my local camera chain, and was give a reserve receipt for $1999. I don't believe that they have any idea what the real price will be, but ..... this is a rumor site isn't it?


----------



## Marauder (Aug 17, 2014)

RichM said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > Since we are all having fun predicting...
> ...



I think it's a matter of what people are willing to pay for the product. Last year, specs similar to the ones in this post (regarding frame rate and resolution, advanced AF) appeared with an estimated price between $2000-$2500 and people were already balking at that price indicating a crop-frame isn't worth that kind of price. I believe they're wrong of course--a crop camera with a great frame rate, advanced AF and fast burst/deep buffer IS worth that kind of money--especially if it introduces a new sensor with considerable IQ improvements. However, if it goes over 3 grand, I'd question it's viability. Even new sensor tech in a crop is not likely to match 5D3 IQ, so it would be a big risk to give it a price in excess of that model. It would be an even bigger risk to have it approach 1 series pricing, at say 4 grand. Too many people will wait for a price drop before buying and that would impact bottom line and harm the camera's reputation. Somewhere north of 2 grand but south of 3 grand would be my guess---but that's a big range in itself! 

Their best bet would be to go with the lowest price they can do and still make a good margin and recoup development costs. Make a BIG splash and sell LOTS of volume, right out the door. This camera has a revolutionary potential, not just for Canon shooters, but for Nikon ones as well. If it's a HUGE success, Nikon will try to counter it with a premium crop of their own (probably in the works already). If Canon misses, either by crippling the camera and/or over pricing it, it might be bad news and not just for Canon shooters. I think this camera is a litmus test for just how good and innovative a crop sensor camera can be. It's also a test for how well Canon can still bring cutting edge technology to the market place.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 17, 2014)

unfocused said:


> This has been a nice discussion about the durability of glass, but I have to wonder: what's the difference between the glass used for a touch screen and the glass used for the ordinary LCD display on the back of every DSLR?
> 
> If it is the durability of the glass that's an issue, how would it be any different if a touch screen is implemented versus the traditional display?



Good point. I am also wondering about the durability of the capacitive touch capability. I had a Samsung Impact phone (admittedly not a top of the line model!)--after about 3 years, the touch screen failed. Not cracked or "damaged" mind you--it just stopped responding to touch, making the phone useless. I've since replaced it with a Samsung S4 Mini which, being a miniaturised version of their top of the line phone, ought to have equivalent durability to the S4, so we'll see how long that lasts. However, many users (most?) tend to replace phones far more quickly than I do, (some more often than they change their underwear, it seems! ) so the long term longevity of the touch screen may be less of an 'issue' in a phone. 

I'm speculating wildly here, but if there is a fairly short life span for the touch sensitivity of such screens in real world scenarios, that might be why Canon is willing to put it into consumer products like the T4i/T5i or even enthusiast products such as the 70D, but shy away from it for a "Pro" type body. 

Can anyone confirm or refute this hypothesis? I confess that's all it is--I have no data to either back it up or contradict it.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 17, 2014)

Marauder said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > This has been a nice discussion about the durability of glass, but I have to wonder: what's the difference between the glass used for a touch screen and the glass used for the ordinary LCD display on the back of every DSLR?
> ...



Both of you brought up a good point - me too: to much focusing on the glass ...

I know that two touchscreen technologies are wide spread:
- Capacitive tracking (works with fingers, small tomatoes, water filled ballons ...)
- Inductive tracking (works with specialized pencils - WACOM is a well known company)

For capacitive touch screens I have only 3 years experience and the mobile phone has survived moderately hard treatment during thes three years.
For inductive technology I am using a 10 year old IBM/Lenovo X41 tablet/convertible - the precision including the pressure sensitivity of the pencil is very very good. Last adjustment made 4 years ago.

But I see no reason that a capacitive touch screen will not survive 10 or 20 years if properly set up. My first thought was that the layers which are able to detect capacity changes by the fingers might underlie some aging. But I think these are made from the same materials like the flat screen displays and these last 10 or perhaps 10ths of years.

Another idea is now emerging: Ever tried to use your capacitive touch screen during rain? On my (Motorola DEFY) smart phone I see strange effects when it is covered with several rain drops. This is a inherent problem of capicitive touch screen technology: A matrix of electrical condensators senses changes of surrounding material. This is done by the effect that material between/near a condensator plate changes it's capacity.
Why water? Our fingers contain a lot of water but many other materials like plastics, leather, jeans, etc. do not contain water. So they designed the electronics and the capacitor matrix to be sensitive to water. That's the reason for listing the small tomato as "tool" to operate a capacitive touch screen. I tried that because I wanted to know how touch screens operate - "What special material is in our fingers?-Water. What water filled object is availabl?-Tomato."

The guys at Canon maybe thought: We have designed a DSLR for harsh environments where water might play a role. It is contradictory to have controls which operate depending on the environmental condions where these controls might be used.

I think that we all mutate to amateur profilers which try to find out how another person thinks to guess it's next steps ... funny thing!


----------



## Marauder (Aug 17, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Thanks for that! I suspected the short life span of my own capacitive touch Samsung Impact phone might be just tied to the device itself, and not the underlying technology, but my own experience is too limited to tell for sure. Your estimate of 10-20 years would seem to negate the longevity theory.

But I think your onto something with the water concept. The basis of this rumour is that the 7D2 will be heavily weather sealed and designed for harsh conditions and that means exposure to rain. If the reliability of capacitive touch technology is intermittent under those conditions, that would be a definite negative for a camera explicitly designed for use by wildlife photographers in all weather conditions. 

FYI, I love the tomato interface idea! "It's a fruit!" "No, it's a vegetable!" "No, you're both wrong---it's freakin *stylus*!!!!" LOL ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2014)

Marauder said:


> But I think your onto something with the water concept. The basis of this rumour is that the 7D2 will be heavily weather sealed and designed for harsh conditions and that means exposure to rain. If the reliability of capacitive touch technology is intermittent under those conditions, that would be a definite negative for a camera explicitly designed for use by wildlife photographers in all weather conditions.



I don't think it's that big a deal. Canon could put a note in the manual, as they do for other things of that nature, such as reduced battery performance in the cold.


----------



## DominoDude (Aug 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> DominoDude said:
> 
> 
> > Would a touch screen still work flawlessly on a cold winter day when it's snowing and the gloves are on?
> ...



Si si, I understand. But it does mean that you need to buy those special gloves, and can't rely on using any ol' gloves.
It does require something extra from the user. I, for example, could easily miss to look out for whatever it is that makes them "touch-friendly", while concentrating on getting warm gloves that stop both wind and water. Good to know they exist anyway.


----------



## DominoDude (Aug 17, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> DominoDude said:
> 
> 
> > Would a touch screen still work flawlessly on a cold winter day when it's snowing and the gloves are on?
> ...


Oh, blimey! 
I see your point in the rest that you wrote.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 17, 2014)

Far as I know the gorilla glass on the iPhone is not the conductive surface but rather fused to it. I'm guessing perhaps that in so making a very rugged weather sealed hefty glass LCD, that heft may in turn prevent the touch sensor (which I believe for apple is thermal) from operating properly. It may work but it may not be terribly reliable. Just a guess


----------



## Marauder (Aug 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > But I think your onto something with the water concept. The basis of this rumour is that the 7D2 will be heavily weather sealed and designed for harsh conditions and that means exposure to rain. If the reliability of capacitive touch technology is intermittent under those conditions, that would be a definite negative for a camera explicitly designed for use by wildlife photographers in all weather conditions.
> ...



Possibly. Do you have an alternative explanation? Do you think a touch screen would be deemed too fragile? I'm not particularly troubled by its absence myself, but it's a desirable enough feature for many and one that has been successfully deployed on the 70D, as well as 3 rebels and the M series. I would think its absence on the 7D2 is likely due to some sort of technical hurdle--be it actual durability, longevity of the capacitive touch technology or it's potential issues in adverse conditions, which are more likely to be encountered by the 7D2's target photographer than in the Rebels, or 70D. Something fairly compelling must have lead them to decide to leave this feature out, given it's considerable popularity on the models in which it appears.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 17, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> Far as I know the gorilla glass on the iPhone is not the conductive surface but rather fused to it. I'm guessing perhaps that in so making a very rugged weather sealed hefty glass LCD, that heft may in turn prevent the touch sensor (which I believe for apple is thermal) from operating properly. It may work but it may not be terribly reliable. Just a guess



Yes, very possibly.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 17, 2014)

Okay, I really didn't mean to turn this into a "touchscreen thread."

But, the more comments I read the more I am coming around to the view that either this piece of the rumor pie is wrong or Canon has something quite different in mind for the 7DII.

To recap: 

Touchscreen is a not a new technology. It's been used commercially for 20 years or more. It's ubiquitous. Anyone who has a smart phone has touchscreen technology. So, it's not like implementing it would be difficult or require major new research and development.

Canon has already implemented it in other models without any major issues.

The durability argument doesn't seem to hold water, since there should be no reason why a touchscreen is any less durable than an LCD screen.

It's a redundant interface, so if there are certain conditions where it might not work as well (rain, cold, etc.) it doesn't really matter because one can always revert to the button, joystick, click-wheel methods to accomplish the same things.

Not implementing a touchscreen will be a major drawback for video production. Canon's dual-pixel sensor technology is highly dependent on touchscreens and loses much of its functionality without a touchscreen.

Weather sealing of a touchscreen is much easier and much more reliable than weather sealing buttons, joysticks, clickwheels, hot shoes, etc. etc. These components are much more likely to fail and leak when exposed to moisture than a well-sealed touchscreen. 

Touchscreens are the preferred and expected interface for many customers, especially for customers who use tablets or smart phones.

None of us has access to Canon's marketing or engineering research. So, of course, all of this is only speculation until we know for sure what technology the 7DII will actually incorporate. But, as the primary purpose of all this speculation is largely entertainment, I would say that if I were to place a bet, I would still bet on a touchscreen and if I'm wrong, it will be fascinating to learn why they did not implement this technology.

I think Marauder sums it up quite nicely:



Marauder said:


> Something fairly compelling must have lead them to decide to leave this feature out, given it's considerable popularity on the models in which it appears.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 17, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Okay, I really didn't mean to turn this into a "touchscreen thread."
> 
> But, the more comments I read the more I am coming around to the view that either this piece of the rumor pie is wrong or Canon has something quite different in mind for the 7DII.
> 
> ...



You may be correct--this part of the rumour may not be accurate. CR seems pretty confident, but until we see a CR3 or an official spec, it's all still up in the air. Although it's not a key feature for me, it's absence would be odd given its successful implementation on several models. I just hope the other parts of the rumour ARE true--high frame rate, superb AF and advanced new sensor tech. This camera has a LOT of people very excited--yours truly included!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Do you have an alternative explanation? ... Something fairly compelling must have lead them to decide to leave this feature out...



At this point, the postulate of the good Friar William – he hailed from Ockham, incidentally – still holds. The simplest explanation, which is usually best, is that omission of a touchscreen from the 7DII Is just a rumor, and therefore quite possibly false.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> Alright, second. Read noise. I consider read noise to be a fairly distinct form of noise, different in nature and impact than photon shot noise. I do NOT believe that read noise has anything to do with pixel size or sensor size. I believe read noise has to do with the technology itself. I believe read noise is a complex form of noise, contributed to from multiple sources, some of them electronic (i.e. high frequency ADC unit), some of them material in nature (i.e. sensor bias noise, once you average out the random noise components, is fixed....as it partly results from the physical material nature of the sensor itself, it's physical wiring layout, etc.) I believe read noise affects overall image quality, but in a strait up comparison of two images from two cameras with identical sensor sizes, read noise in an invisible quantity. It doesn't really matter how much you scale your images, whether you scale them up or down, whether you normalize or not. Before any editing is performed, read noise is an invisible deep shadow factor, it cannot usually be seen by human eyes.



OK, now here is where you lost me.

And let me ask you this:
You say that given the same sensor tech a larger sensor does better because it collects more light, OK sounds good (so long as the MP difference isn't crazy extreme, with current tech, if you compared a 400MP FF sensor to an 8MP sensor the the 400MP probably would show a bit of a penalty for having pixels quite that small, although at that density they might swap to BSI which could help though true, but to rid those issues, imagine they just kept it the same type of sensor).

You say that the above only holds so long as the sensor tech is the same or at least not getting to be radically far off so you agree that better sensor tech can make a difference, OK.

You agree that a 36MP FF camera shouldn't do much worse than a 24MP FF camera if they use the same tech, because you have to normalize so you compare the photon shot noise of same frequency to same frequency if you are trying to figure out whether the higher MP could deliver a 24MP result that would be as good in terms of noise, OK.

But you say that suddenly for read noise we can only compare photosite to photosite and that you can't normalize as you did above to see if the higher MP might do as well compared at the same scale. Why? How is this noise magically behaving differently and scale invariant? It sounds like are mixing up the relative invariance between how each photosite does for read noise with the way the noise results scale which have nothing to do with one another.

I mean what if sensor A has 40MP of photosites that have the same read as sensor B that has 10MP of photosites that have the same read. Now you say to look at only the ScreenDR and compare the tiny photosite of the 40MP camera to the big one of the 10MP camera and you say they do about the same and get about the same score. But you are comparing photosites that are at only 1/2 the scale of the others as if they were the same scale so if you want to know what the relative comparison between the two was in terms of how you could do in this regard on an even basis, well you are not doing that. You are just seeing how the 40MP camera would do if you took full advantage of the extra res of the 40MP, but nobody says you have to take advantage of the extra res. If you compare the 40MP camera the 10MP scale it would probably give a slightly better overall result or just call it the same to be simple as the 10MP camera. The PrintDR numbers would tell you that. But just using your ScreenDR numbers you'd think that there is no way you could ever be able to use the new camera to match the old camera's result.





> When it comes to read noise, to me, that is all about editing latitude. Because it's a deep shadow thing, it doesn't manifest until you start making some significant exposure adjustments. You have to lift shadows at very low ISO by several stops before the differences between a camera with more sensor+ADC DR and a camera with less sensor+ADC DR really start to manifest. Those differences only matter at ISO 100 and 200, they are significantly diminished by ISO 400, and above that the differences between cameras are so negligible as to be nearly meaningless...sensor size/photon shot noise totally dominate the IQ factor.



Yes (although I'd extend it to say that matter to ISO400 and start to tail off a lot above ISO800, but it depends exactly what you are comparing and how picky). But what does this have to do with normalization?



> I do believe that normalization is important to keep the frequency of photon shot noise, which is the primary visible source of noise in images that have not been edited, at the same frequency for comparison purposes. I do believe that normalization will and should show differences between larger and smaller sensors. I do not believe, however, that normalization of a non-pulled image is going to have any impact on how deep the blacks appear to an observer. I believe the only thing that can actually measure the differences in the deep shadows, where read noise exists, are software algorithms. I do believe that having lower read noise means you have better editing latitude when editing a RAW image in a RAW editor, and that for the purposes of editing, lower read noise, which leads to increased dynamic range (primarily by restoring what would have otherwise been lost to read noise in the shadows) is a good thing, and something that can and does certainly improve certain types of photography. This is the fundamental crux of my belief that DXO's PrintDR numbers are very misleading, and why I prefer to refer to their ScreenDR numbers...as the increase in DR that you gain from having lower read noise is only really of value WHEN editing a RAW image and lifting shadows.



OK, that last bit really makes no sense at all. What does Screen vs Print measurement have to do with whether one has looked into the shadows or not??? How does viewing an image at 100% view or both scaled to fit the same size area on the screen have anything to do with whether you are looking at shadows or not?

And the first part too, since why do you only need to normalize noise to the same frequency if it it's noise that you instantly notice with any tone curve but don't need to apply it to noise that you notice only after looking into shadows by changing the tone curve??? What if the RAW converted shifted the mid-point way high up? Then suddenly there is not need to normalize photon noise either because the RAW converter defaults to a high mid-tone placement??



> Otherwise, I really don't care about comparing cameras within a "DXO-specific context"...I care about comparing cameras based on what you can actually literally do with them in real life. (I KNOW you disagree with this one, but we should just agree to disagree here, because neither of us is ever going to win this argument. )



Not between us I guess since it's 1 vote against 1 vote, but at least DxO and 90% of the info out there agrees with me (it's just you and a handful of others on here and DPR who don't). 



> That is my stance on these things. I am pretty sure you'll disagree in one way or another, and that's ok. However I do not believe that my assessment of these things is fundamentally wrong. I believe it may be different than your assessment, or DXO's assessment for that matter. But I do not believe I have a wrong stance on this subject. I separate photon shot noise and the impact it has on overall IQ (which is significantly greater) from read noise, and the impact it has on the editing latitude you might experience when adjusting exposure of a RAW image in a RAW editor at an unscaled, native image size.



OK, well at least in the end the final statement here is correct, if not particularly sensible in terms of comparisons, in that you admit that you are just simply choosing to not normalize for read noise and choosing to only care about how a full RAW image does against a full RAW image, both viewed at 100% when it comes to read noise even if you choose to not compare at 100% view, but to compare fairly for mid-tone noise. 

But I mean you directly state that you are comparing two totally different things things.

And I still await to hear why it makes sense to only compare mid-tone noise at normalized scale and NOT at 100% view, but it makes sense to only compare read noise at 100% view. Why does it make sense to compare apples to apples for mid-tone noise but makes sense to compare apples to oranges for deep tone noise???

and for that matter, when you want to simply see how a full RAW does, taking advantage of the full res of each RAW, you want to still normalize mid-tone noise, when in that case you should not be normalizing either mid-tone noise or shadow noise.

I mean either you want to see how the new camera will do with it's RAWs taken to full resolution advantage and get an idea how they will process and look if you used all the extra res in which case you don't normalize and you do 100% view comparisons for all noise, low, mid or upper tone. Or you want to compare the cameras fairly and see if one is noisier than the other and then you need to normalize all the noise, low, mid or high tone.

I don't get the point in comparing one always normalized and one never normalized. I mean you can do that if you want, who knows why, but whatever, but that is one thing, to then say that DxO is raw BS and the PrintDR is fake, has no bearing on reality, and nobody should ever compare in any way using that, blah blah blah, is just flat out wrong.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2014)

Roo said:


> Straightshooter said:
> 
> 
> > *Makes you wonder indeed why canon wouldn't invest time and money to be checking websites like CR full time so they can read all these 'pearls of wisedom'?!* :
> ...



Which would explain why their low ISO quality hasn't improved since 2007. (or more likely the big guys simply didn't want to spend $$$ to make new fabs, which are very expensive it is true)


----------



## msm (Aug 17, 2014)

In case someone doesn't get it:

You won't see more steps in a shot of a transmission step wedge by downscaling, the downscaled image will look exactly the same unless you downscale so much that you see pixelization. If you compare a shot taken with a 8mpix sensor against shot taken with a 36mpix sensor where each pixel has exactly the same DR in both sensors however...


----------



## unfocused (Aug 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have an alternative explanation? ... Something fairly compelling must have lead them to decide to leave this feature out...
> ...



Well now that we've concluded the discussion of a touchscreen – which might be defined as "merely trivial," it appears we can get back to the discussion of dynamic range, which would fall into the category of "manifestly trivial." 

Have at it guys. On this issue I couldn't care less.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 17, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Not between us I guess since it's 1 vote against 1 vote, but at least DxO and 90% of the info out there agrees with me (it's just you and a handful of others on here and DPR who don't).



Have you even looked at other test sites? DxO is always the odd ball out when it comes to DR tests. Their results are different from Imatest as well as straight up transmission step wedge tests every single time. The latter two are usually in close agreement.

DxO simply has no idea what photographic dynamic range is.



> Which would explain why their low ISO quality hasn't improved since 2007. (or more likely the big guys simply didn't want to spend $$$ to make new fabs, which are very expensive it is true)



Both Canon's FF and APS-C sensors have better DR today then they did in 2007. Even their 18 MP sensor has improved with each "minor" change/iteration. I suspected this the first day I processed RAWs from my M. Looked it up and sure enough, about 1.5 stops more DR then the original 18 MP sensor in my 7D.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 17, 2014)

msm said:


> In case someone doesn't get it:
> 
> You won't see more steps in a shot of a transmission step wedge by downscaling, the downscaled image will look exactly the same unless you downscale so much that you see pixelization. If you compare a shot taken with a 8mpix sensor against shot taken with a 36mpix sensor where each pixel has exactly the same DR in both sensors however...



You will see the exact same DR in both shots. No different then if you shot 8x10 Velvia 50 and 35mm Velvia 50 and compared them in terms of DR.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 17, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Well now that we've concluded the discussion of a touchscreen – which might be defined as "merely trivial," it appears we can get back to the discussion of dynamic range, which would fall into the category of "manifestly trivial."



But Canon hasn't updated their sensors since 1969 and Sonikon sensors get 9,001 more stops of dynamic range and some say if the 7D mkII sensor isn't revolutionary Canon will die!

Or so I read in a forum on the Internet last Thursday


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 17, 2014)

To get us back on topic, a rundown of EOS 7D Mark II information.....

What we know so far is in the list below:

Point 1: We don't even know if it will be called the 7D Mark II

That's it! That's all we know! ...... but let's see if we can get over 1000 posts to discuss this wealth of information...


----------



## msm (Aug 17, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > In case someone doesn't get it:
> ...



First of my examples yes you will same DR, second of example wrong, you will see different DR and that is precisely why comparing print DR makes sense and screen DR is of limited value. If signal to noise performance per pixel is equal, a higher megapixel sensor will always capture more information. Why this happens is already explained in one of the other 2000 DR threads here.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 17, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> But this isn't dynamic range, it's latitude, and these two are confused, especially when comparing Canon vs Sony Exmor. The actual dynamic range is not as dramatically different as the Exmor missionaries like to champion, but the Exmor does have considerably more _latitude_ in the extreme low lights. However most of us never have a need to lift low lights to the extent it becomes a problem with Canon.
> 
> So I would say down sampling does have a slight advantage in _latitude_, but this has nothing to do with dynamic range.



I initially skimmed over this but wanted to come back to it because you nailed it.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 17, 2014)

msm said:


> First of my examples yes you will same DR, second of example wrong, you will see different DR



Please actually try this experiment some time.



> If signal to noise performance per pixel is equal, a higher megapixel sensor will always capture more information.



Spatial information != luminance information.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2014)

msm said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



As dtaylor previously stated, there's a difference between the generic definition of dynamic range (as applied to signals of all types) and the meaning of _photographic dynamic range_. Get a Stouffer step wedge and a light table and try it out...


----------



## jrista (Aug 17, 2014)

I'm going to snip most of the text here, because this is getting long. 



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> But you say that suddenly for read noise we can only compare photosite to photosite and that you can't normalize as you did above to see if the higher MP might do as well compared at the same scale. Why? How is this noise magically behaving differently and scale invariant? It sounds like are mixing up the relative invariance between how each photosite does for read noise with the way the noise results scale which have nothing to do with one another.
> 
> I mean what if sensor A has 40MP of photosites that have the same read as sensor B that has 10MP of photosites that have the same read. Now you say to look at only the ScreenDR and compare the tiny photosite of the 40MP camera to the big one of the 10MP camera and you say they do about the same and get about the same score. But you are comparing photosites that are at only 1/2 the scale of the others as if they were the same scale so if you want to know what the relative comparison between the two was in terms of how you could do in this regard on an even basis, well you are not doing that. You are just seeing how the 40MP camera would do if you took full advantage of the extra res of the 40MP, but nobody says you have to take advantage of the extra res. If you compare the 40MP camera the 10MP scale it would probably give a slightly better overall result or just call it the same to be simple as the 10MP camera. The PrintDR numbers would tell you that. But just using your ScreenDR numbers you'd think that there is no way you could ever be able to use the new camera to match the old camera's result.






LetTheRightLensIn said:


> And I still await to hear why it makes sense to only compare mid-tone noise at normalized scale and NOT at 100% view, but it makes sense to only compare read noise at 100% view. Why does it make sense to compare apples to apples for mid-tone noise but makes sense to compare apples to oranges for deep tone noise???
> 
> and for that matter, when you want to simply see how a full RAW does, taking advantage of the full res of each RAW, you want to still normalize mid-tone noise, when in that case you should not be normalizing either mid-tone noise or shadow noise.
> 
> I don't get the point in comparing one always normalized and one never normalized. I mean you can do that if you want, who knows why, but whatever, but that is one thing, to then say that DxO is raw BS and the PrintDR is fake, has no bearing on reality, and nobody should ever compare in any way using that, blah blah blah, is just flat out wrong.



There is noise, and there is editing latitude. In pretty much every thread on here that ends up with the DR debate, what do people talk about? The amount of noise they can see, or the amount they can lift the shadows? In all the threads I've been party to, it all ultimately comes down to how much you can lift shadows. In none of the DR debates I've ever been party to has anyone ever said "You don't see as much noise with an Exmor sensor." No, the thing everyone always says, and the thing everyone always tries to demonstrate, is "Look how much I lifted the shadows! Look, I have a fully detailed sun, and detailed shadows, in this landscape photo. Oh, and look over here, the Canon sensor has tons of nasty red banding noise when I lift the shadows."

As far as I can tell, as far as most consumers are concerned, DR all boils down to EDITING LATITUDE. It means more shadow lifting.

So, why do I treat them differently? First, you are not wrong about comparing cameras...you need to normalize. And normalization affects read noise as much as it affects photon shot noise. But that is comparing final IQ. That's fine and dandy...but I believe people are misusing final IQ (of UNEDITED images) to refer to editing latitude. It's THAT, the use of normalized images to refer to editing latitude, that I believe is wrong. I believe DXO's publishing of Print DR exclusively on their ratings, completely ignoring Screen DR entirely, has lead to the misinterpretation of REAL WORLD editing latitude in a RAW. 

Since everyone always ultimately arrives at "pulling shadows" in DR debates at one point or another, I'm always harping on that point. More DR means less noise, and normalizing means even less noise for larger sensors, but we cannot edit normalized images. We only edit full size images. So, from an editing latitude standpoint...I believe Print DR is invalid. For one thing, the Print DR numbers at DXO are only valid if you downsample an image to exactly that size. I don't think many people actually downsample their images to exactly 8x12 @ 300PPI all the time...hell, I think it's actually probably quite rare. So always referring to 14.4 stop of DR when discussing shadow lifting ability is plain and simply wrong in all the infinite other possibilities for image size. And that's not even mentioning that when it comes to the types of photography that tons of DR are most useful for, say landscapes, your probably UPsampling, rather than downsampling, which makes it even more invalid.

The other thing is that we don't edit RAW images after downsampling them. They would no longer be RAW. We edit RAW images at native size. So we deal with the native noise levels and noise frequencies *when we are pulling shadows. * So yes, normalization will reduce all noise, including read noise, we can't downsample our RAWs...we must edit them at native size. If we take DXO's Print DR numbers as a reference for editing latitude, they would have you believe that you have more than an additional stop of editing latitude with a D800, and nearly two additional stops of editing latitude with a D810. That is plain and simply false. Hence the reason I treat read noise uniquely in the case of editing latitude.

Finally, as far as *visible *noise goes from a human perception standpoint...read noise only exists in the deep shadows. It doesn't really matter if you have 38e- worth of read noise (as in the 1D X), or ~3e- worth (D800) or ~6e- worth (D810). You can't see it at native size. You still can't see it after normalization. Perceptually, read noise is inconsequential from a visual standpoint. Photon shot noise, on the other hand, or what you have called midtone noise (I think that's a bit of a misnomer...photon shot noise exists at every level of the signal, from the highlights down to the utter depths of the shadows, well below the read noise floor), affects the entire signal, and is the prime source of noise that we actually perceive in our photographs. 

So, I don't believe that read noise frequencies are consequential to normalization...you can't see them anyway. That leaves photon shot noise as the primary noise culprit we are dealing with when normalizing images for comparison. Sure, read noise frequencies get normalized as well, but only a computer algorithm can tell the difference, so as far as I'm concerned, normalization of read noise frequencies is immaterial. When it comes to photon shot noise, well that is a part of quantization of the incoming photonic wavefront itself. Photon shot noise is ultimately determined by frame size, as your gathering the same amount of photons regardless of what your pixel size is. If your using a 1D X, each pixel is gathering more photons than the pixels of a D800. At native size, the D800 will appear noisier on a per-pixel basis, however after normalization there won't be any significant difference (in noise...the D800 still certainly maintains the advantage in overall detail, no question). There won't be any difference, because the amount of visible noise in those two photographs really has nothing to do with read noise...it has to do with the total quantity of light gathered. Now, the D800 has higher Q.E., so it should have an advantage...but at the same time, it also has a lower fill factor (more pixels, still an FSI design, so more die space has to be reserved for wiring and readout transistors.) I think in a normalized context, where a D800 image was downsampled to the same size as a 1D X image at ISO 100, the D800 would probably have a slight edge, as I don't think it's fill factor is going to entirely negate it's increased Q.E. However, fundamentally, the overall amount of perceptual noise (photon shot noise) in the images has to do with total sensor area. Read noise is there, and it is less in the D800...but we can't see the difference with our eyes. The shadows are shadows, both cameras have more dynamic range than any computer screen can handle anyway (~11stops for Canon, ~13 some stops for Nikon)...so the stuff in the shadows is buried several stops below the limit of a computer screen regardless.

The only time read noise becomes a meaningful factor is when your pulling shadows. THEN, and only then, does the advantage of having LESS read noise really become a meaningful issue. In that case, the D800, and any other Sony Exmor based camera, wins, hands down, no contest. However, and here is where DXO comes in again...A D800, D810, A7r, A7s, etc. don't have an 8x light gathering advantage over a Canon camera (as DXO's PrintDR numbers would have you believe). In fact, its about HALF that, one stop less, or a 4x advantage. Personally, I think being off by 100% is a meaningful thing. If DXO was saying the D800 had a 4.1x advantage over Canon cameras, I'd have never said a peep. But saying the D800 has nearly an 8x advantage over Canon cameras...yeah, I have a problem with that.

So...I keep read noise levels in the context of discussions on DR (which pretty much ALWAYS end up referring to shadow lifting ability at some point), distinct from the whole concept of normalization. Because were talking about editing latitude, something that cannot be compared in a normalized context (at least, as far as I see it.)

Well, I don't think I can explain my stance any better than that. I'm guessing you still disagree, but that's ok. Nothing either of us can do about that at this point.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 18, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...


such is the fun when an analog system (film) goes digital and confusion about measurement and calibration multiplies.....

I come from an electronics background and to me, it's SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio) to measure performance of electronics, not DR. I have always thought of DR as the equivalent of "stops", an observed/perceptual scale, not a measurable scale with electronics test equipment.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 18, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> To get us back on topic, a rundown of EOS 7D Mark II information.....
> 
> What we know so far is in the list below:
> 
> ...



It will be called the EOS VII Mark II....because that wouldn't be confusing at all... :


----------



## Marauder (Aug 18, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > To get us back on topic, a rundown of EOS 7D Mark II information.....
> ...



Oops, make that EOS VIID Mark II! (Yeah, I could have just modified the post, but leaving the "error" in is more amusing....I hope!) :


----------



## x-vision (Aug 18, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> But Canon hasn't updated their sensors since 1969 and Sonikon sensors get 9,001 more stops of dynamic range and some say if the 7D mkII sensor isn't revolutionary Canon will die!
> 
> Or so I read in a forum on the Internet last Thursday



Well, that's absolutely true.
8)


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 18, 2014)

Yes, as you can see by the picture, Canon has not updated the sensors since at least 1979. Left to right. Canon A1. Élan 7E. 6D. Note the glassy, flippy uppy thingies are all the same size and shape. Shame. It was difficult back then to edit pictures that were only 100KB in RAW. I'm glad we at least stepped up resolution from the old A1 ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 18, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



So what? There are different ways to declare what the lower limit should be. Person A may think level 1 is OK person B may think that is bad onyl leve 2 is needed etc. All we care about it getting a relative difference between sensors in an easy to test, repeatable way. Engineering DR covers that. Sure the exact numbers it claims may not agree with what you find usable which would almost certainly be a lower number, but it would be uniformly lower. If you want to know what usable DR you can get out the file at full resolution that is one thing. If you just want to know to what degree one camera will differ from another in relative terms nothing wrong with using normalized engineering DR.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 18, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> All we care about it getting a relative difference between sensors in an easy to test, repeatable way. Engineering DR covers that.



No it does not. It's related to it, but it does not directly translate to it.



> Sure the exact numbers it claims may not agree with what you find usable which would almost certainly be a lower number, but it would be uniformly lower.



But it's not. The differences between DxO reports on one hand and step wedge tests or Imatest reports on the other are not uniform, and are not even consistently lower. As has been pointed out, Canon scores much higher on the latter tests.



> If you just want to know to what degree one camera will differ from another in relative terms nothing wrong with using normalized engineering DR.



It just doesn't tell you anything about photographic DR.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> There is noise, and there is editing latitude. In pretty much every thread on here that ends up with the DR debate, what do people talk about? The amount of noise they can see, or the amount they can lift the shadows? In all the threads I've been party to, it all ultimately comes down to how much you can lift shadows.
> 
> In none of the DR debates I've ever been party to has anyone ever said "You don't see as much noise with an Exmor sensor." No, the thing everyone always says, and the thing everyone always tries to demonstrate, is "Look how much I lifted the shadows! Look, I have a fully detailed sun, and detailed shadows, in this landscape photo. Oh, and look over here, the Canon sensor has tons of nasty red banding noise when I lift the shadows."
> 
> As far as I can tell, as far as most consumers are concerned, DR all boils down to EDITING LATITUDE. It means more shadow lifting.



Yeah and the greater the engineering DR Print DR measurement for one camera compared to another the greater the degree you have in editing latitude when the goal it to compare a final result at the same scale.



> So, why do I treat them differently? First, you are not wrong about comparing cameras...you need to normalize. And normalization affects read noise as much as it affects photon shot noise. But that is comparing final IQ. That's fine and dandy...but I believe people are misusing final IQ (of UNEDITED images) to refer to editing latitude. It's THAT, the use of normalized images to refer to editing latitude, that I believe is wrong. I believe DXO's publishing of Print DR exclusively on their ratings, completely ignoring Screen DR entirely, has lead to the misinterpretation of REAL WORLD editing latitude in a RAW.



Once again as we say and they say if you want to view at 100% and see what you can do use their Screen DR.
Sure you are correct about that.

But then you turn around and call anything BS when it is not. If you want to compare one camera to another and find out the relative difference in what you could get out of it you use the Print plots instead.

And you realize that you can use the same arguments you try to use in a weird way against Print DR against PrintSNR. Why not just say they edit the RAW at 100% view so the amount of noise they have to deal with and NR applied and sharpening applied is determined by that so forget about PrintSNR and just use ScreenSNR? Why not penalize high MP cams for that too? Why penalize high MP cams for DR but not for SNR? (or better why penalize them for either!)







> Since everyone always ultimately arrives at "pulling shadows" in DR debates at one point or another, I'm always harping on that point. More DR means less noise, and normalizing means even less noise for larger sensors, but we cannot edit normalized images. We only edit full size images.



You don't have to, your first step could be to normalize the image and then edit, if you wanted to.



> So, from an editing latitude standpoint...I believe Print DR is invalid.



With that twisted point of view why from an editing noise appearance is PrintSNR not also invalid then?
And in that case though you magically change your mind and agree that using ScreenSNR would unfairly penalize high MP cams. Is that because you'd then end up having to claim that a very low MP ASP-C camera might be 'better' for noise than a very high MP FF camera (both using the same tech)? But with the way read noise tends to work you manage to less easily hit such paradoxes???





> For one thing, the Print DR numbers at DXO are only valid if you downsample an image to exactly that size.



Of course.
Nobody says to care about the ABSOLUTE normalized numbers each in isolation. All we care about with normalized values is carrying out relative comparisons. To be fair they have to pick some size to normalize to unless they were to make up tables for every single sensor difference (and to what point?), what size and what absolute numbers come out who cares? All you care about is the difference.




> I don't think many people actually downsample their images to exactly 8x12 @ 300PPI all the time...hell, I think it's actually probably quite rare. So always referring to 14.4 stop of DR when discussing shadow lifting ability is plain and simply wrong in all the infinite other possibilities for image size.



Where I am talking about 14.4 stops of shadow lifting latitude? First of all engineering DR doesn't account for banding so if any of that was around the usable amount would be less. Second (really first), you probably wouldn't be satisfied with the engineering level base term and probably wouldn't want to push that low. And finally the absolute number you can push to also depends upon the output scale and detail you are going after.

So sure, in probably very few cases would you feel you had 14.4 stops to work with.

But that is NOT what we are talking about, we are talking about relatively how one camera fairs vs another.




> And that's not even mentioning that when it comes to the types of photography that tons of DR are most useful for, say landscapes, your probably UPsampling, rather than downsampling, which makes it even more invalid.



not if you want to know how one camera would relatively do comapred to another

sure if you are talking waht absolute value of stops you get in editing latitude the absolute PrintDR isn't so useful, but then again, you probably won't agree that you have the ScreenDR number either even if working at 100% view on a 30" 1080p monitor since you'd likely think the low parts that the engineering value uses are total junk.

If someone uses ScreenDR and says oh look this digital sensor here is giving me 13 stops so much more than I felt I could ever get working with film, that is misleading. But were did I mention saying that?

If you are pointing to ScreenDR or PrintDR and say I can get that many stops latitude it's not likely you'd feel that working with the image.

But if after normalizing that high MP camera comes out a few stops better under PrintDR but about the same under ScreenDR then viewing both at 100% ScreenDR would tell you the relative story, but if you want to know if that high MP would give you a worse result printed to the same size and viewed from the same distance then it would be misleading and imply you wouldn't do better when the PrintDR would tell you you'd do better.




> So yes, normalization will reduce all noise, including read noise, we can't downsample our RAWs...we must edit them at native size. If we take DXO's Print DR numbers as a reference for editing latitude, they would have you believe that you have more than an additional stop of editing latitude with a D800, and nearly two additional stops of editing latitude with a D810. That is plain and simply false. Hence the reason I treat read noise uniquely in the case of editing latitude.



You must edit them in terms of the mid-tone noise measurement they take at full RAW too (unless foveon in which case that is not true, you could downsample and still keep RAW, even for Bayer you could if you downsampled to very particular sizes but whatever). And here you agree you can't fairly compare them at 100% view. So why can you not fairly compare them at 100% view for noise at say mid-tone (just using mid-tone gray since that seems to be what DxO uses for their SNR plots) but you fairly compare viewing pulled shadows at 100%?? What is the difference??




> So, I don't believe that read noise frequencies are consequential to normalization...you can't see them anyway.



First why are you calling them read noise frequencies? You could sample over large blobs or individual photosites in the darks or mids or brights.

And second if you say that read noise only happens in such dark tones that you can't see any difference regardless of what the read noise is then how come even you admit that you can pull shadows better with an Exmor sensor??




> That leaves photon shot noise as the primary noise culprit we are dealing with when normalizing images for comparison.



Yeah much of the images tones are affected more by shot noise, but not at all. So you look at two different things and they give you two different plots. What does this have to do with anything under discussion?




> Sure, read noise frequencies get normalized as well, but only a computer algorithm can tell the difference,



First, I think you are getting confused by mixing up spatial frequencies with something or other? Not sure why you are referring to it in that way.

If the signal you are looking at is so low that the normalization has no effect that you are looking deeper than you are using anyway since you won't spot any non-normalized differences anyway I'd think.

You might say well maybe the eye finds anything in the realm where read noise starts affecting the signal too deep and dark and a mess to care about after raising shadows, which could be, only it doesn't seem to be since the differences in the shadows can very clearly be seen so the read noise is stomping over stuff that is visually useful and it seems to match up to about what is suggested. So it doesn't seem to be the case that the measurement is looking in too deep at this point.



> The only time read noise becomes a meaningful factor is when your pulling shadows. THEN, and only then, does the advantage of having LESS read noise really become a meaningful issue.



Well, yeah of course.



> In that case, the D800, and any other Sony Exmor based camera, wins, hands down, no contest. However, and here is where DXO comes in again...A D800, D810, A7r, A7s, etc. don't have an 8x light gathering advantage over a Canon camera (as DXO's PrintDR numbers would have you believe). In fact, its about HALF that, one stop less, or a 4x advantage. Personally, I think being off by 100% is a meaningful thing. If DXO was saying the D800 had a 4.1x advantage over Canon cameras, I'd have never said a peep. But saying the D800 has nearly an 8x advantage over Canon cameras...yeah, I have a problem with that.



Because you decide to not normalize for shadows but only for upper tones for some reason.

The difference seems pretty major to me at ISO100. I mean really quite, quite, jump out at you so and 1 stop certainly doesn't produce that and even 2 stops not really, so the getting close to 3 stops seems reasonable to me although I haven't tried to do a careful study with custom uniform RAW converter that treats them all them same and then visually comparing by stop. But just what you see using say ACR it seems reasonable although it's tricky to get clear measurements out of that because so many variables.



> So...I keep read noise levels in the context of discussions on DR (which pretty much ALWAYS end up referring to shadow lifting ability at some point), distinct from the whole concept of normalization. Because were talking about editing latitude, something that cannot be compared in a normalized context (at least, as far as I see it.)
> 
> Well, I don't think I can explain my stance any better than that. I'm guessing you still disagree, but that's ok. Nothing either of us can do about that at this point.



:'(

Anyway I'm sick of this, so I will quit, you can have any last word if you wish, have at it. I've become bored and didn't mean to waste so much time on this response.


----------



## AvTvM (Aug 18, 2014)

I don't care at all about DXO. And I don't care whether it's called "DR", "photographic DR" or "latitude".
I do care about images ... and i know, I cannot get images like in the following link (Nikon D810 review) from my 7D or the EOS-M and also not from a Canon 6D or 5D3 or 1D-X or any other Canon EOS. 

Here goes:
http://aboutphotography-tomgrill.blogspot.co.at/2014/08/nikon-d810-hands-on-review.html?m=1

BEcause I (greatly) prefer the Canon user interface, I would like to get this type of IQ and "DR" from a Canon EOS ... preferably mirrorless FF camera the size and weight if a Sony A7. 

And I don't care, whether it is called 5D IV, 6D II, EOS-M Pro or whatever. As long as they bring it to market at competitive prices = somewhere between Alpha 7R and Nikon D810 ;D


----------



## msm (Aug 18, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



Actually I can't find a generic definition for DR, different fields, different definitions. However the ones I have seen for photography are engineering DR and Bill Claff's photographic DR which is something else than dtaylor's photographic DR. I guess I used the term SNR wrongly in the above post, electronics is not my field, what I meant is pixel DR i.e. engineering DR. Apologies for any confusion that might have caused.

If dtaylor's DR is related to shooting wedges however (which I kinda assumed from his post, he does not explain at all what he means by photographic DR):

If shooting Stouffer step wedges with the 2 different sensors and observing the result at a meaningful and equal distance at a given print size, then the individual photosites in your eyes won't see individual pixels, they will see the sum of multiple pixels (and it will be more pixels with a higher resolution sensor) and then it just boils down to statistics. Under the assumptions in my post, if you sum 4 pixels with maximum value x/4 and standard deviation s/4 you get one pixel with maximum value x and standard deviation s/2, i.e. you gain one stop DR compared to just a large pixel with maximum value x and standard deviation s. This lowered noise in the high megapixel sensor should allow you to see another step.

I can't however try it out as I don't have access to sensors with identical engineering DR but different pixelcounts.

Screen DR is only interesting when pixel peeping at 100%, without considering the total pixel count it doesn't say all about the image as a whole. It only says how much information you have in a single pixel.

Print DR says something about how much information the image as a whole contains. While the print DR number itself is only valid at the given "print size", the DR numbers at other print sizes can be derived from this.

Unlike jrista, when I edit my images I care about the end result as a whole and not just a 100% view of parts of the image and thus I find "print DR" to be the most meaningful on the DXO site.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 18, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> All i care about is images ... And i know, i cannot get such images with the 7D or the EOS-M and also not with a Canon 6D or 5D3 or 1D-X.



Changing this post because I shouldn't hand wave the claim.

Let's take his first shot of the model in the chair with "Exceptional dynamic range, from the bright window to the deep shadows with no noise and smooth tonal trasition. No fill was added to this severely back lit shot."

* The window is blown completely out.
* The shadow to the right is lost completely to black.
* Critical point: a strand of hair on the model's head is also blown out. She wasn't as underexposed as you might imagine.

Please note that these are technical observations. The shot itself is very nice. Sometimes you want clipped highlights or shadows for contrast with the subject. He is making very good use of bright, blown out backgrounds for "glow" and contrast.

But this shot does not have "exceptional dynamic range." I'm sure the model was underexposed in the original file, but I doubt he had to push more then a stop or two, and this would not have been from the deepest shadows. She was closer to middle gray then to black.

If you cannot get a similar image under similar circumstances with one of the Canon cameras listed, the problem is not the camera.

Same thing for the next two samples. The third sample is the most underexposed, but he did not push the shadows very hard as she is not as brightly exposed in the final version. I've pulled more detail then that back from shadows like that with Canon sensors, but you will want to apply some NR when you do so.

You can come up with examples where Exmor yields more DR / better latitude (ability to push shadows around).

These are not it.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 18, 2014)

msm said:


> Actually I can't find a generic definition for DR, different fields, different definitions. However the ones I have seen for photography are engineering DR and Bill Claff's photographic DR which is something else than dtaylor's photographic DR.



I *hate* when people push a theory without having first observed the very things the theory attempts to explain. It seems to be a core part of human nature and is rampant from silly forum debates all the way to the leaders of nations.

Order a Stouffer transmission step wedge. Shoot it with different MP sensors at the same tech level (Sony A7 and A7R; Nikon D600 and D800; etc). Scale. Observe.

You will not see what your theory predicts you will see.


----------



## AvTvM (Aug 18, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > All i care about is images ... And i know, i cannot get such images with the 7D or the EOS-M and also not with a Canon 6D or 5D3 or 1D-X.
> ...



Well, I have shot myself and seen enough images from all sorts of current Canon EOS cameras ... and NONE of them can deliver these kind of images out of cam / without REALLY HEAVY post processing. 






http://aboutphotography-tomgrill.blogspot.co.at/


> Exceptional dynamic range, from the bright window to the deep shadows with no noise and smooth tonal trasition. No fill was added to this severely back lit shot.


----------



## msm (Aug 18, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I can't find a generic definition for DR, different fields, different definitions. However the ones I have seen for photography are engineering DR and Bill Claff's photographic DR which is something else than dtaylor's photographic DR.
> ...



And I dislike it when people post stuff like this without actually reading and understanding what they respond to.


----------



## daniela (Aug 18, 2014)

Information from Japanese Canon fan girls, who are working @Canon:

Information about the successor of the 7D and the 5DIII are under total NDA. And total means total. There is just an small circle of engeneers and managers who know all of these Cameras. Others are just working on fragments of this Cameras to avoid leaks. If anyone says, he knows details on these products, he is not telling the truth.
In earlier times print jobs for tranportation and manuals were given to the printeries weeks before announcement. This time, there ist still just printing time reservated. No files have been sent to them (status from 08/12).

Canon is still thinking that they do not have to produce the best and most innovative products in the low and mid price segments. Sales figures show that the market analysts are right. Canon is still the best power seller on the market. And the analysts know that in future time, the market wil not grow and other brands are coming in. Sony will be very active, maybe an 5DIII and 1DX mirrorless competitor is coming in the near future.
The slow reaction on the D7100 and the still "no reaction" on the excellent D800/810 is well calculated. No need to hurry, Canon products are still sold well. There are not many persons switching to Nikon, because the majority of Canonians will not be able to spend a lot of money on new expensive lenses. The average Canon customer will be satisfied by new Canon products, even if other brands will produce superior products.

And the rumored prices of the 7D successor are just rumors. Some Canon fans in Japan think that there will be an hefty price increase on Canon products on coming products. Analysts say, that customers are willed to pay the increase. The increasing number of tests and scores, where Canon products are often just a few points /percents better than e.g. third party lenses, will prompt the average (and scores fixed) Canon fan to buy this "bettert product".
If you can see that in their pictures? I do not know.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 18, 2014)

msm said:


> And I dislike it when people post stuff like this without actually reading and understanding what they respond to.



You made the same wrong claim and prediction that you've made before. You will not see another step in the higher MP image. I know because I've tried these things. I wish you would to.


----------



## msm (Aug 18, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > And I dislike it when people post stuff like this without actually reading and understanding what they respond to.
> ...



I wish you would actually read my post and realize that I never said you will see a difference by rescaling image taken by one sensor. I am talking about 2 different sensors.


----------



## Ivar (Aug 18, 2014)

That's interesting and sounds plausible.



daniela said:


> Information from Japanese Canon fan girls, who are working @Canon:
> 
> Information about the successor of the 7D and the 5DIII are under total NDA. And total means total. There is just an small circle of engeneers and managers who know all of these Cameras. Others are just working on fragments of this Cameras to avoid leaks. If anyone says, he knows details on these products, he is not telling the truth.
> In earlier times print jobs for tranportation and manuals were given to the printeries weeks before announcement. This time, there ist still just printing time reservated. No files have been sent to them (status from 08/12).
> ...


----------



## Alino (Aug 18, 2014)

"Information about the successor of the 7D *and the 5DIII * are under total NDA."

Is there also a NDA on a 5DIII successor????

First news!!! The fan girl don't want to speak, but speak too much!


----------



## daniela (Aug 18, 2014)

Alino said:


> "Information about the successor of the 7D *and the 5DIII * are under total NDA."
> 
> Is there also a NDA on a 5DIII successor????
> 
> First news!!! The fan girl don't want to speak, but speak too much!



Everybody knows, that Caonon is working on successors of the 5DIII and 1DX. 
But treat this not as an near announcement!! They just wrote, that Canon is doing the further product development under an strict NDA.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 18, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Well, I have shot myself and seen enough images from all sorts of current Canon EOS cameras ... and NONE of them can deliver these kind of images out of cam / without REALLY HEAVY post processing.



His images are not "out of cam." It is quite evident from his review that he is post processing RAW files.

Find a portrait photographer who uses Canon and he will deliver images like those to you all day long.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 18, 2014)

msm said:


> I wish you would actually read my post and realize that I never said you will see a difference by rescaling image taken by one sensor. I am talking about 2 different sensors.



Obviously. Why on Earth would you be talking about one???

Did you read my posts because I told you to actually shoot a transmission step wedge with 2 different sensors. The results will not match your predictions.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 18, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



You have _got_ to joking


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I have shot myself and seen enough images from all sorts of current Canon EOS cameras ... and NONE of them can deliver these kind of images out of cam / without REALLY HEAVY post processing.
> ...



How _dare_ you spoil the D810 love fest with empirical reality. It's the best camera available, at least until the D820 is launched in a few months. 

I really do enjoy the irony of the plethora of 'examples' of the utility of higher DR showing scenes where the DR isn't that high, or was far higher than the camera could capture so the image still has blown and/or blocked areas with lost detail. 

I'm not saying more low ISO DR is a bad thing, just that so many purported examples fail to demonstrate it's utility.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 18, 2014)

dilbert said:


> daniela said:
> 
> 
> > Information from Japanese Canon fan girls, who are working @Canon:
> ...



Canon's stock price is up almost 10% on the year. Dividend yield right now is almost 4%. Pretty darn good. Nikon on the other hand is down 25% on the year and their dividend yield is half of Canon's. So you are correct from the purely fiscal business perspective that Canon is probably comfy resting a bit on it's laurels right now from the consumer division. But the nerds in R&D are probably restless and are getting tired of hearing their colleagues at Nikon razz them every weekend at the Sake bar.

All that said I'm thinking about buying Nikon ...... stock. Seems undervalued. 8)


----------



## Marauder (Aug 18, 2014)

daniela said:


> Information from Japanese Canon fan girls, who are working @Canon:
> 
> Information about the successor of the 7D and the 5DIII are under total NDA. And total means total. There is just an small circle of engeneers and managers who know all of these Cameras. Others are just working on fragments of this Cameras to avoid leaks. If anyone says, he knows details on these products, he is not telling the truth.
> In earlier times print jobs for tranportation and manuals were given to the printeries weeks before announcement. This time, there ist still just printing time reservated. No files have been sent to them (status from 08/12).
> ...



This sounds like a Canon user's worst conspiracy theory nightmare---and I doubt it's true. Why have such an ironclad NDA if the product isn't pushing boundaries? In addition, if Canon was just planning to "keep pushing inferior product because the cattle will keep buying it," why develop new technologies like DPAF, that have no real equivalent in other companies? If it was true, the 70D would have had a conventional sensor--probably based on the existing 18MP sensors that have been the buttered bread of the Rebel line for the last 5 years! Like most myths, this takes a certain element of truth--Canon has milked the same sensor tech with moderate improvements for the Rebel line for 5 years--and extends it past the breaking point. I don't think the 7D2 will be a conservative design--it's true we don't know for sure what it will be yet, but I think it unlikely it will be a "warmed over" 70D. And if it is, it will not succeed, especially if it's priced north of $2,000. 

Another salient point, the camera must be a LONG way out from delivery if they haven't already started printing brochures, manuals and boxes! That material doesn't just spring into being in the many thousands of copies needed overnight!

My (extinct Canadian) two cents worth anyway! 

Note, I'm not trashing you Daniela--I just don't think the source of this rumour is reliable.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 18, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > daniela said:
> ...



LOL @ "razzed at sake bar"


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 18, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Another salient point, the camera must be a LONG way out from delivery if they haven't already started printing brochures, manuals and boxes! That material doesn't just spring into being in the many thousands of copies needed overnight!



The contract to print for Canon must be worth a fortune! If they do it in-house, then they have control over leaks. If it is contracted out, there is undoubtedly a penalty clause for leaking info, plus that would mean the loss of your biggest client and that nobody else in the industry would touch you again... That would be the death of the company, so anyone printing the info would keep things absolutely quiet. Anyone who leaked the info would loose their job and get sued for millions.... it is not worth it!


----------



## daniela (Aug 18, 2014)

Marauder said:


> daniela said:
> 
> 
> > Information from Japanese Canon fan girls, who are working @Canon:
> ...



Well, as I wrote some postings before, Japanese Canon Fangirls do not know it either. But many of them think that this content could be true. 
On the other hand, maybe, they just raise the pressure on Canon. The Japanese are not thinking like we do. Japan is another world, everybody who has worked there will has realized that there is still much fear to "looses your face" and in many companies it is an question of honor to meet the feud glove.

Canon is doing a lot of research, more than other companies. But there is an strict plan, which fundamental improvement or invention is put into which class of camera or lens. And most of them are for the upper segment. In my opinion further research and development on the 70Ds AF system will be built in > 5DIV Cameras, when it will work perfectly. My 70D produces - in my personal feeling - as many unsharp pictures as my old 7D. But when it will be improved, this AF will be a great feature.

@ printing job: It is a question of work preparation. If the cardboards are punched and prefabricated, the job could be done in a few weeks. 
I think Canon will first deliver the Cams to professional Canon dealers, like done with the 70D. So, the mass of the Cams will be delivered a bit later


----------



## AvTvM (Aug 18, 2014)

Thanks Danuiela. I believe that perfectly describes current Canon thinking. However, as opposed to Canon and their analysts I am convinced this ignorance and arrogance towards their customers will cost them dearly. 

I have purchased hardly anything from Canon during the last 5 years (7D) and will continue to do so, as long as they do not deliver the products I want [basically, a mirrorless "Sony A7R killer" or at the very least a "Fuji XT-1 killer" (APS-C)]. I've recently sold the 7D and some of the Canon lenses and have no qualms to sell the remaining approx. 5k in Canon lenses, if need be. 

Yes, that's just me ... but I know, it is not just me.  



daniela said:


> Information from Japanese Canon fan girls, who are working @Canon:
> 
> Information about the successor of the 7D and the 5DIII are under total NDA. And total means total. There is just an small circle of engeneers and managers who know all of these Cameras. Others are just working on fragments of this Cameras to avoid leaks. If anyone says, he knows details on these products, he is not telling the truth.
> In earlier times print jobs for tranportation and manuals were given to the printeries weeks before announcement. This time, there ist still just printing time reservated. No files have been sent to them (status from 08/12).
> ...


----------



## jrista (Aug 18, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > And I dislike it when people post stuff like this without actually reading and understanding what they respond to.
> ...



Well, maybe we finally have something we can agree on. ;P I do agree, you will not see another step in a higher MP image, for the reasons I tried to explain to LTRLI. 

I guess that's where our agreement ends, though. :

If you lift the shadows in the image, however, you should actually get more steps with a sensor that has lower read noise. IF YOU PULL THE SHADOWS. If you take images of step wedges, and do not pull the shadows in them, then again as I described to LTRLI, you won't notice any difference between cameras. Shoot a step wedge with a 5D III, and shoot a step wedge with a D800, and compare the out-of-camera results on a computer...and there won't be any difference. The reason for that is that the DR gain on the D800 is in the deep shadows, because read noise has been reduced...and those shadows are several stops below the level that a computer screen can render. You have greater editing latitude, and the ability to UTILIZE more dynamic range in an image created with a sensor that has lower read noise. 

Most computer screens render 8-bit meaning they cannot naively render more than 8 stops of DR in an image, where as most RAW files are 14-bits, and they contain images with 11-13+ stops of DR. The 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th stops of additional DR in a RAW will all be rendered as either very deep shadows, or simply blacks, when the gamma curve of the screen is applied. This is WHY we tend to lift shadows...to "recover" those stops of dynamic range that cannot be rendered properly by a computer screen.

So, if you are taking photos of step wedges, then comparing the *unmodified *OOC results, I am honestly not surprised if you are not seeing any difference between the D800, 5D III, and any other cameras. Without modification, without pulling up the shadows, your only seeing a gamma-corrected 8 stops or so, which is leaving a few stops at least buried in the shadows. A simple test, but one that might be prone to a little subjectivity, would be to take some step wedge shots with a D800 or D810, and a 5D III, and pull up the shadows until the noise in the shadows either starts exhibiting unsightly patterns, or becomes more pronounced than throughout the rest of the tonal range. With a Canon, you might be able to recover up to about three stops (11-8) before Canon's unsightly noise becomes a problem. With a D810, you should be able to recover four to five stops before noise becomes more pronounced in the shadows than at any other level...however it won't have any pattern, it should just be nice, clean, random noise. You could lift the full 5.8 stops (13.8-8) and still have good results...but the shadow noise will likely become more pronounced than at any other level at some point.

Anyway, after doing that kind of shadow pull...then compare the step wedges. It's in this particular case that you should notice the DR advantage of cameras that use Sony Exmor sensors. The advantage should be up to around two stops over non-Exmor sensors, and sadly, the worst competitor on the market at the moment are Canon sensors.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 18, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Another salient point, the camera must be a LONG way out from delivery if they haven't already started printing brochures, manuals and boxes! That material doesn't just spring into being in the many thousands of copies needed overnight!
> ...



Being someone that has created and farmed out for printing many single page sales sheets and political campaign mail pieces over the years I can tell you unequivocally that those pro press shops (the really big ones) can rip 100,000 of those out in a day once they're plated and on the press. In other words, they will probably make a small print run for Photokina to hand out, and then go back immediately after and make their typical large print runs which could be in dealer hands within a week, well before the cameras hit stores at the end of September / early October (guessing)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> I have purchased hardly anything from Canon during the last 5 years (7D) and will continue to do so, as long as they do not deliver the products I want [basically, a mirrorless "Sony A7R killer" or at the very least a "Fuji XT-1 killer" (APS-C)]. I've recently sold the 7D and some of the Canon lenses and have no qualms to sell the remaining approx. 5k in Canon lenses, if need be.
> 
> Yes, that's just me ... but I know, it is not just me.



No, it's not just you. I recently sold the 7D and some Canon lenses and had no qualms about selling approximately $5K in Canon gear. Of course, I bought several times that amount in new Canon gear. Yes, that's just me...but I know, it is not just me. And unlike you, those of us buying Canon gear are in the majority.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 18, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Thanks Danuiela. I believe that perfectly describes current Canon thinking. However, as opposed to Canon and their analysts I am convinced this ignorance and arrogance towards their customers will cost them dearly.
> 
> I have purchased hardly anything from Canon during the last 5 years (7D) and will continue to do so, as long as they do not deliver the products I want [basically, a mirrorless "Sony A7R killer" or at the very least a "Fuji XT-1 killer" (APS-C)]. I've recently sold the 7D and some of the Canon lenses and have no qualms to sell the remaining approx. 5k in Canon lenses, if need be.
> 
> ...




I find the frequent assumption that any forthcoming Canon must be a mirrorless camera to be noteworthy rather presumptuous. There seems to be a vocal crowd that goes to any product forum, even a product that is almost certain to be a DSLR, and then issue a series of threats and ultimatums that the product had better be mirrorless or else it will show that Canon disrespects it's customers. I find it quite odd. It's like there is an automatic assumption that mirrorless cameras are the ONLY sort of interchangeable lens camera that is viable, which is simply nonsense of course. I am interested in the forthcoming 7D2 primarily as a wildlife camera, which is one of the primary target markets for this camera. And, like most people shooting wildlife and action, I WANT/NEED my optical viewfinder. The notion that a traditional DSLR has no place in the modern photographic world is at best premature. It's hard to say if an OFV will ever really be unnecessary in a camera--that day may yet come---certainly EFV's are improving--but to suggest or imply that the rest of us who still prefer a DSLR, as well as the companies that make such cameras, are somehow obsolete and out of tune with progress is just absurd. 

Perhaps I'm reading more into your post than is there? But you seem to imply that unless Canon makes a FF mirrorless camera, then nothing it makes will matter. Not sure why someone who wants a mirrorless FF camera would feel the need to post that desire on a thread that is about a forthcoming DSLR cropped frame model? Again, apologies if I'm misunderstanding you, or misrepresenting your central point.

Also, don't get me wrong---I'm not against mirrorless--it's just that I see it as a supplemental or additional technology, rather than a replacement for traditional DSLR's. Certainly they have a base of enthusiastic followers and Canon can and should capitalize on that following. DPAF gives Canon a great technology that just about screams "put me into a mirrorless camera!" Three things surprised me about DPAF:
1. That they had the technology--it really is quite a technical marvel.
2. That they elected to introduce it in a DSLR rather than a CSC (not to say it's not relevant in a DSLR-it is!)
3. And this is the big one--that they did not follow up the successful launch of the 70D by launching a follow-up to the M line with a DPAF sensor!

DPAF is great on a DSLR, but a potentially market leading tech for big sensor mirrorless cameras. Again, not that I'm in the market for such a camera really--I'm not--the camera I want is the camera I believe the 7D2 will be! But I also realize the camera purchaser is a diverse group--different tools for different uses and users! I don't see any reason why Canon cannot diversify their line by bringing out strong lines of both DSLR's and CSC cameras. Perhaps they will, but it does seem further from their RADAR. 

I think they made a huge misstep with the M of course--not that the camera itself lacked potential. The FW update fixed the worst of its AF issues and made it an entirely useful product for those attracted to its small size and decent IQ. But it shouldn't have ever even have been released with such a faulty AF system in the first place--once the reputation was damaged, recovery was all but impossible. I think they're still reeling from that a bit--but they should get over it. A good entry level mirrorless camera (and an expansion of the native lens selection) could give them the confidence boost they need to take on the A7R style of camera--DPAF could be the key to either a solid, dependable entry level CSC or, if DPAF AI Servo can undergo a significant improvement with development (and it looks like it can!) then a very good higher level mirrorless entry. Time will tell!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 18, 2014)

daniela said:


> Information from Japanese Canon fan girls, who are working @Canon:
> 
> Information about the successor of the 7D and the 5DIII are under total NDA. And total means total. There is just an small circle of engeneers and managers who know all of these Cameras. Others are just working on fragments of this Cameras to avoid leaks. If anyone says, he knows details on these products, he is not telling the truth.
> In earlier times print jobs for tranportation and manuals were given to the printeries weeks before announcement. This time, there ist still just printing time reservated. No files have been sent to them (status from 08/12).
> ...



Assuming they have info or are guessing correctly, that would be pretty disappointing from Canon assuming if they are still in that mode of thinking. It's really a shame the degree to which they have let the bean counters take over. I mean silly stuff like remove MFA at the last second from 40D, put it into the 50D, remove it again from 60D so it can be a selling point for 70D and the dribbling out of the minor autoiso feature over a decade and still only making it work right on 1DX, I mean really Canon, really Canon? You are down to playing those levels of games?

Maybe if they didn't play so many silly little games like that and all the little cripplings they did to stock 5D3 video, the forums wouldn't have so many whiners. And at some point they will be wrong about switching over and whining will turn to switching. Honestly, if they punt this next round of cameras I think you will see more of a move to Nikon than simply an adding on of an A7R or such.

One hopes that by low and mid-tier they mean Rebel and xxD and not Rebel//xxD and 7/5 series.

And don't forget the old no need to update it still sells well put Atari into the dumps from which they never really recovered and same for others. Granted the camera market is a bit more stable so they can get away with it a lot more.

And before someone says oh yeah Canon they still sell, well who cares? Can you take photos with the money in their CEO's pocket?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 18, 2014)

dilbert said:


> daniela said:
> 
> 
> > Information from Japanese Canon fan girls, who are working @Canon:
> ...



+100

Anyway I was already saying that they were converting to this attitude years ago, before Nikon even came out with their first FF, you should have heard the way their top rep in Europe was talking at that one show. Nothing but giving one the impression other than: hahahaha we are the kings on the mountain, we rule all, we have no need to do anything, hahaha why do you ask such a foolish question about producing a FF camera with any speed or performance ahahaha we are kings, what need, we are infinitely far ahead of Nikon for sensors, they have no FF and won't for a decade ahahaha (the real ahahaha was when Nikon introduced a fast, performance FF less than a year later), we are kings on the mountain. We will sit as is and sell. We have no need, how can you ask such a question. We are kings.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 18, 2014)

Marauder said:


> daniela said:
> 
> 
> > Information from Japanese Canon fan girls, who are working @Canon:
> ...



These are all good points too. I was thinking why the super secret, super secret then. Although I was thinking it could mean they are developing stuff, good stuff, but will only use it if they see sales plummeting. A bit of a dangerous game and certainly a very annoying one for their user base at the least.

Who knows. It seems clear that Canon has thought along these lines in the recent past at least though.
One of their reps flat out said they removed MFA from the 60D simply so they could make it a 'new' selling point again for the 70D. I mean come on, what kinda cheap games is that?

An EOSfun poster with close ties to Canon used to sprinkle interesting tidbits and was all gung-ho Canon but even he seems to have disappeared and soured a bit and he said Canon left the 5D3 sensor old school since the marketing guys wanted to push new boundaries in profit margin per body with the 5 series and felt that adding the new 1 series AF would mean they could get away without really bothering a lot with the sensor.

A Canon guy in Australia said the DSLR division in Japan didn't seem to care a whit when their division sent them some scheme to improve DR and basically told them to get lost. (hopefully something was lost in translation between the two divisions, certainly possible)

But maybe crazy good stuff is just around the bend. Maybe by next spring it will all be hear and the calculated waiting was not referring to stlll more years of holding back but just the past few releases and now they are ready? I could very well imagine that.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 18, 2014)

Now it is true that the 5D3 ended up being able to deliver stunningly good 1080p 24fps RAW video and it got some usability features, which made it quite the revolutionary camera in the end. But all of that was 100% solely thanks to a very small and very dedicated group of hackers (OK, granted they (Canon) had to have designed the underlying hardware but if they had it locked up and it never meant for that and if the in cam video is all smeared and it ships with no usability features....).


----------



## unfocused (Aug 18, 2014)

Marauder said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Danuiela. I believe that perfectly describes current Canon thinking. However, as opposed to Canon and their analysts I am convinced this ignorance and arrogance towards their customers will cost them dearly.
> ...



I always find it amusing when forum participants seem unable to separate their personal tastes from marketplace demand. 

It's not like mirrorless cameras are taking the world by storm. All mirrorless sales (not just Canon) have done poorly in western markets. 

While they have done better in Asia, the unknown (at least to us) is whether the Asian market is a leading or a trailing market. Too many on this forum assume it is a leading market (that is, other markets will follow the trends there).

But, we don't know that. Strong mirrorless sales in Asia may be either an anomaly having to do with cultural differences, or it could very well be that in China, at least, strong mirrorless sales may be a precursor to DSLR sales (people buying mirrorless may, as they get more serious with the hobby, ditch their mirrorless for DSLRs which offer many advantages for wildlife, sports, action, etc.) 

Canon is the only company that has innovated when it comes to DSLR form factor – SL1. They may have the market research to know that a smaller form factor in a DSLR is an effective competitor to mirrorless. (I know I personally would consider an SL1 but not a mirrorless).

Of course we don't know anything about these "Japanese Canon Fan Girls who are working at Canon" or if their claims are accurate or even translated properly (I have my doubts about both).

But, I did highlight one point: 



> Canon is still thinking that they do not have to produce the best and most innovative products in the low and mid price segments.



Well. duh. Market leaders never have to produce the best and most innovative products in their lower- and mid-price lines. That's true in any industry. 

First of all, market leaders have a brand identity to protect and that requires a conservative approach to product releases. Nikon's recent and very expensive fiascoes are clear examples of the risk of premature releases. When you have a brand name build on reliability you must be conservative with your releases. 



> I am convinced this ignorance and arrogance towards their customers will cost them dearly.



It is hardly ignorant or arrogant for a market leading company to take a conservative approach. The best way to respect your customers is to make sure you stay in business for the next 20-30 years. Canon is respecting its customers by protecting their investment in Canon equipment. 

People talk about being "trapped" by their investment in Canon. But, frankly, I'd much rather be "trapped" by Canon or Nikon than have all my equipment lose its value when Sony decides they can no longer afford to support its camera division so they sell the division off to some investment group which starts piecemealing it out.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> One of their reps flat out said they removed MFA from the 60D simply so they could make it a 'new' selling point again for the 70D...
> 
> An EOSfun poster...said Canon left the 5D3 sensor old school since the marketing guys wanted to push new boundaries in profit margin per body with the 5 series and felt that adding the new 1 series AF would mean they could get away without really bothering a lot with the sensor.
> 
> A Canon guy in Australia said the DSLR division in Japan didn't seem to care a whit when their division sent them some scheme to improve DR and basically told them to get lost.



Sorry, but these all sound like goofy, water-cooler conspiracy theories.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 18, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



LOL @ "goofy, water-cooler conspiracy theories"

I tend to concur. When it comes to removing AFMA from the 60D, it seems far more likely that it was removed because the 7D was kind of taking over for the xxD line when it comes to a more premium body with a more demanding user. Still probably not the wisest move, and it's nice to see its return on the 70D, which goes a long way to putting the xxD line back where it belongs--which is why the 7D2 has so much room to move up, way beyond the xxD in general and the 70D in particular. 

Specs for the 7D2 seemed to gravitate all over the map for a time. We were told it was going to be 61 points and 10 fps. Then there was a 19 point AF rumour also at 10 FPS. It ranged from 21MP to 20.2MP after the 70D launch. In essence, the rumours after the 70D seemed to indicate a far less capable camera than originally rumoured--in essence like a barely warmed over 70D, which would be disappointing unless it performed FAR better than the numbers indicated. When things began to gel again, the AF system was back to being a centre point--a new AF system that would was going to be shared with a forthcoming 1 series as well as a brand new tech sensor of around 24MP. And things have stayed around that level for the last few months, becoming more consistent, which is a bit more confidence building. 

My take away in all this? We might still see the "warmed over 70D" version. I'm sure the pessimists will see it that way. Indeed some of the pessimists will hate it even if it is an amazing camera with lots of new tech, because it's not "mirrorless" or "full frame" (or "APS-H!") or because it has too few megapixels (or too many) or ______. And the pessimists are right about one thing though--we don't know yet, and may not know till the announcement date, or even later when it's reviewed. Sure, the current rumour indicates "New AF," but that doesn't mean it isn't really just hyperbole for a warmed over 19 point AF. Nothing much has been said recently on the AF system. Maybe it will only have 8fps. 

But I don't think so. I suspect it's going to rock! I think it's going to have a killer multi-point AF system (I'll be surprised if it doesn't have at least 41 points--maybe more). I think it's going to have a heavy duty build and a new tech sensor with DPAF (possibly even using the new patent where DPAF works with the traditional AF). I think it's going to do an honest 12fps (at least 10) and I think it's going to have very good IQ for an APS-C camera. And I think it's going to prototype cool new tech that will propagate to the other high end lines, like the 5 and 1 series. I think Canon realizes this thing is going to have LOTS of eyes on it and that it has to be a *wow, Wow, WOW, OMG WOW * sort of camera, especially for the target audience. 

Do I know this--of course not! But asking someone not to speculate on the rumoured specs and what they might mean at a rumour site is rather like going into a Provincial/State or National park and saying "OMG....you idiots are----CAMPING! What on earth FOR????!!!!" LOL

Right now, the 7D2 is Schrodinger's Cat. It's both a warmed over 70D AND an amazing leap forward for APS-C cameras simultaneously! (Or something in between. Or it's a hoax and not coming at all.) We won't know until Canon opens the box! 

What I can say though, is that a 7D2 that under reaches and is merely a warmed over 70D is likely to be a costly mistake for Canon. And if it's one that redefines what an APS-C camera can be, by giving the wildlife/sports/action photographer what we expect will be a massive success, if it can live up to the high expectations. 

Schrodinger's Camera is coming--it's currently alive and dead--which one it stays, remains to be seen.


----------



## jrista (Aug 18, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Schrodinger's Camera is coming--it's currently alive and dead--which one it stays, remains to be seen.



Hah! Very nice!  And, really about as true as it gets. We won't know till we know. Just wish Canon would hurry up and release it already.  Alive or dead.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Schrodinger's Camera is coming--it's currently alive and dead--which one it stays, remains to be seen.
> ...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRvCvsRp5ho


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 18, 2014)

unfocused said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > One of their reps flat out said they removed MFA from the 60D simply so they could make it a 'new' selling point again for the 70D...
> ...



In the first case it's a direct quote from a Canon guy at a show in Europe. I forget, but I believe there is also evidence in 40D firmware code that the feature had been in there but pulled seemingly late in the gaeme (which was extremely annoying since Canon had the 1D3 mirror fix fiasco right at that time so they were too busy to bother calibrating lenses to bodies in any timely matter then, which caught up a lot of 40D users, I ended up having to shoot better part of a sports season and take it on a nat geo trip fairly badly out of calibration, if marketing hadn't pulled the MFA, it wouldn't been zero issue.) And it would be pretty curious thing for a Canon guy to make up and let slip regarding the reason for pulling it from 60D.


In the second, maybe the EOSfun guy was full of it, but he a history of popping up right before an announcement and dropping hints that always turned out to be true.

In the last case, the guy is a verified Canon employee (NOT in the camera division though) and, as I said, maybe something got lost in translation and the way the one group took it was not what the other group really meant (maybe they had something better, realized the idea would not actually work, etc. and then when they said no thanks it came across as too brusk in a lost in translation between cultures kinda thing).

Anyway, yeah the last two are not given, but the first one is. And also the Canon guy in Europe who many years ago kept going on about how Canon was so far ahead of Nikon in FF that they had no need to do anything at all but sit there on top of the hill, that was real, there even used to be video of it online, not sure if it is still up anywhere or not.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 18, 2014)

Marauder said:


> I tend to concur. When it comes to removing AFMA from the 60D, it seems far more likely that it was removed because the 7D was kind of taking over for the xxD line when it comes to a more premium body with a more demanding user. Still probably not the wisest move, and it's nice to see its return on the 70D, which goes a long way to putting the xxD line back where it belongs--which is why the 7D2 has so much room to move up, way beyond the xxD in general and the 70D in particular.



Only the 7D was not taking over for the xxD line and MFA is not a feature or a bonus, it is simply something to make something function to spec and basically not be broken.

And it would be a curious thing for a canon guy to say if not true, since for what purpose would he say such a thing otherwise?


----------



## unfocused (Aug 18, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> In the first case it's a direct quote from a Canon guy at a show in Europe.



I'm not doubting that a Canon employee at a trade show might say something like that. I just doubt that he would have any access to the information to justify such a statement. Canon has never been enthusiastic about AFMA. I think they see it as a way for customers to really screw up their camera settings and create extra work for their service centers. I think they dropped it from the 60D because they viewed it as a consumer product and didn't want the headaches. I suspect they took so much grief for doing that they they decided with the 70D to just bite and bullet and include it.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> In the second, maybe the EOSfun guy was full of it, but he a history of popping up right before an announcement and dropping hints that always turned out to be true.



Except the statement isn't even true. This forum was filled with rave reviews from actual users (mostly wedding and event photographers) about the incredible improvement in high ISO performance offered by the 5DIII when it came out. I'm not interested in re-opening this old debate, but there are plenty of people who think the 5DIII sensor was a vast improvement over the 5DII.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> In the last case, the guy is a verified Canon employee (NOT in the camera division though)...



It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Canon basically said to their non-imaging employee: "that's nice, we have an entire engineering department to do this work. Please go back to doing what we are paying you to do."


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 18, 2014)

AFMA is hard to do right. It is not a one-shot deal, it is about shifting a probability distribution onto the center, and that takes lots of readings under controlled conditions.

When you consider how many people get it wrong and how few people even bother with it on high end cameras (and those are supposed to be the "best and brightest") putting it on lower end cameras is a disaster waiting to happen. If I were Canon, I wouldn't put it on lower end cameras and would be working on an automatic AFMA scheme so that the camera could calibrate itself.


----------



## jrista (Aug 18, 2014)

unfocused said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > In the first case it's a direct quote from a Canon guy at a show in Europe.
> ...



This seems far more logical to me than some kind of secret conspiracy at Canon to keep their customers buying upgraded cameras. I honestly cannot see Canon purposefully screwing their customers over for an extra buck. Historically, that has the opposite effect...you piss your customers off, and they go elsewhere for their needs. 

I am thinking your right, AFMA is probably a source of camera screwups and extra service center costs. I bet that's why they have been putting effort into R&D on automatic AFMA technology...they have at least one or two patents for such technology. It's certainly better if the camera can figure out for itself what the best AFMA setting is, than to have a customer do it and maybe mess something up (without realizing it, most likely), and then complain to Canon about the issue. 



unfocused said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > In the second, maybe the EOSfun guy was full of it, but he a history of popping up right before an announcement and dropping hints that always turned out to be true.
> ...



The 5D III sensor is a vast improvement over most of Canon's older sensors, for sure. The difference between the 5D III and 7D for identically framed shots is massive. I was printing at 24x36 most of the time with my 7D images. I just received three new prints at 40x30", all taken with the 5D III. The big, blurry backgrounds look exquisite! 

Of course, I pretty much live and die at high ISO. Once I get back out into the mountains (hopefully next week), It'll be my first change to see how well the 5D III does for landscapes. I'm sure it will be better than the 7D, simply because of frame size...but I do wonder about the shadow pulling.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 18, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> AFMA is hard to do right. It is not a one-shot deal, it is about shifting a probability distribution onto the center, and that takes lots of readings under controlled conditions.
> 
> When you consider how many people get it wrong and how few people even bother with it on high end cameras (and those are supposed to be the "best and brightest") putting it on lower end cameras is a disaster waiting to happen. If I were Canon, I wouldn't put it on lower end cameras and would be working on an automatic AFMA scheme so that the camera could calibrate itself.



It's just not that hard to make it give you at least a bit better result. And there is always the incredibly difficult, almost impossible anyone with less than a 170IQ to handle, option to hit RESET ALL TO ZERO if it goes badly.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 18, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Marauder said:
> ...



Yes indeed, we shall only know the truth when it is announced and reviewed. Hopefully in a few weeks!

And yes, "Wanted, Dead Or Alive" is the PERFECT theme song! We will either salivate to get it, or turn sadly away, but we want to know WHICH! We've waited long enough to find out!!!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 18, 2014)

unfocused said:


> I'm not doubting that a Canon employee at a trade show might say something like that. I just doubt that he would have any access to the information to justify such a statement.



Yeah I do agree, it does seem more likely that he wouldn't have that info, although it's not impossible.
But why would he say such a thing since it doesn't help 60D sales in any way that I can see and it would seem he could make up some less damaging sounding excuse easily enough, so on that hand it seems like he got frustrated himself and let something slip? But yeah it is a bit surprising he might know such details, but I think he was slightly higher up, still....




> Canon has never been enthusiastic about AFMA. I think they see it as a way for customers to really screw up their camera settings and create extra work for their service centers.



service centers? just hit reset to zero. at the very worst it is fixed with a single email or phone call. and I have to think there are fair more cameras that get sent in for poor focus (which is very often due to poor calibration) than there are people who are so clueless that they can't figure out what reset all to zero means.




> I think they dropped it from the 60D because they viewed it as a consumer product and didn't want the headaches. I suspect they took so much grief for doing that they they decided with the 70D to just bite and bullet and include it.



Neither of us knows for sure, but I personally doubt that.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Except the statement isn't even true. This forum was filled with rave reviews from actual users (mostly wedding and event photographers) about the incredible improvement in high ISO performance offered by the 5DIII when it came out. I'm not interested in re-opening this old debate, but there are plenty of people who think the 5DIII sensor was a vast improvement over the 5DII.



Well that depends. And the landscape forums tend to have much different view. Anyway yeah I don't want to get into that. (also the high iso stuff they did was took the least effort and least expenditures to improve at all)




> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > In the last case, the guy is a verified Canon employee (NOT in the camera division though)...
> ...



yeah perhaps. apparently one of their guys came up with a scheme that he believed they could use on the current old fabs to improve DR and their group sent it over to get it patented and were apparently met with a quick wave off, they were under the impression that is was some business manager type who waved them off and that it never even got shown to engineering over there (but yeah a lot of ifs and questions in teh story, all I can say is they felt a little put off by it all and some doubts over management at DSLRs grew in their minds, although it's certainly possible that the true, deeper truth wouldn't come across badly and it may be differen tthan it seems)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 18, 2014)

Marauder said:


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



I'm really waiting on the 5D4 even more, since even if the 7D2 doesn't do too much for the sensor (unless of course it does ;D ;D and then we are totally golden), the 5D4/1DX2 story might be different. So yeah just bring those last two on for they are Wanted, Dead or Alive!!!!!!!! And then we can finally know whether Canon is in the game again or whether some may finally hit the point to stop whining and just switch (not that the Nikon side is all roses, the lenses are not as exciting for one, but if the 5D4 and 1DX2 drop the ball sensor-wise, maybe it's time Nikon's issues be damned).


----------



## Marauder (Aug 19, 2014)

Marauder said:


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



I've never tried it on my 7D. For one thing, I don't have enough space or light in my humble little apartment to setup the targets to do my 100-400--the only lens I have where I thought I might need it. Secondly, I was concerned about making things worse, and I wasn't sure the Reset would erase the AFMA changes or not, or if it would just reset menus. :/

I'd very much welcome an automated AFMA system, if it works well!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



And yet 40D MFA code got disabled.
Marketing had them cripple the min shutter speed for AutoISO Av on the 5D3 for no sane reason.
etc.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 19, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



I think it's at least possible, if not probable that the 7D2 will have improved IQ on the new sensor--although I expect it will be improved within the context of an APS-C sensor, so full-frame aficionados are still better waiting for the 5D4 or 1DXI (or X2, or whatever--LOL). That being said, if the 7D2 does ship with some sort of new sensor technology, it may be a hint as to what sort of improvements might be in store for the new FF models. Then we have two more Schrodinger's Cats!

Either way, I'm out when it comes to the new FF cameras, whenever they come--too rich for my blood and I'm just a humble hobbyist, so there are very proscribed budgetary limits for me. Now a second hand 5D3 might be in the offing, given time and enough of a price drop. A second hand 1DX would be preferable, but given how stubbornly the 1DIV has hung onto its price, I don't see the 1DX becoming "affordable" within my context at any reasonable future point. On the other hand, if the 7D2 does rock, 1DIV's might just drop to the ~2 grand mark, which puts them within a range for which I can reasonably save $$ and purchase. That will happen sooner or later, so it's an option for me if the 7D2 fails to deliver what I am expecting. 

There are options in the Canon Pantheon regardless, at least for me! For that matter, I still rather enjoy my current 7D and T3i combo. I use the 7D for wildlife and challenging subjects--my humble little T3i for most other things--and it all works fairly well for me. Also game to try more film with the little collection of Canon film SLR's I've picked up here and there. Still plenty of "fun" for moi, regardless of what happens....

Oh, who am I kidding!? I'm going to get drunk and cry in my beer if the 7D2 doesn't rock!


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 19, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Oh, who am I kidding!? I'm going to get drunk and cry in my beer if the 7D2 doesn't rock!


I've got $2500 set aside for the 7D2.... if it does not rock, that's a lot of beer!


----------



## Marauder (Aug 19, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, who am I kidding!? I'm going to get drunk and cry in my beer if the 7D2 doesn't rock!
> ...



True! You always think of the bright side! Or is that the blurry side? Or blurry, room spinning, poundyhead side????


----------



## jrista (Aug 19, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



I wouldn't switch, myself. I'd add a D810 and a 14-24 to my kit for landscapes. I still think that overall, Canon is still much better for the action stuff, in my case wildlife and birds. The lenses are truly to die for.


----------



## DominoDude (Aug 19, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, who am I kidding!? I'm going to get drunk and cry in my beer if the 7D2 doesn't rock!
> ...



Don and Marauder: Stay away from Westvleteren "Yellow cap" (a Belgian Trappist beer) and the $'s will last longer.


----------



## jrista (Aug 19, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



What concrete evidence do you have that the Canon marketing department had "them" do anything? That makes no logical sense. I've worked for a number of very large companies, and dealt with marketing people. NOT ONCE has a marketing person EVER told me what to do. The politics in most large companies simply won't allow that kind of thing to happen. Such a demand would have to go through umpteen channels, up then down then up again when the demand steps on someone elses turf and gets kicked back.

Sorry, but I find the whole notion that Canon Marketing is making demands of the engineering or product development side of Canon to be laughable. 

From what I've found and read about MFA in older cameras (40D, 30D), it was something that may have been designed just for service center use. Assuming that's the case, then the functionality was included in the 40D, but not as a consumer function. As someone who has used BackyardEOS, an astrophotography software tool, for about six months now, I can attest to the fact that Canon includes a LOT of functionality in their firmware that is not directly accessible by menu options in the camera. When you dig into the Canon APIs, you learn that a whole range of awesome things are possible using it. 

It does indeed seem as though there are a number of features included that may be explicitly intended for service center use. I don't know why they are restricted, but Canon certainly has their reasons...and I am HIGHLY skeptical that the reason is simply: The marketing department somehow thinks that purposely gimping cameras is going to attract more customers. A lot of that functionality probably support's Canon's testing and diagnostic utilities that are used when you send a camera in for repair, and a lot of that functionality should probably NOT be accessible by consumers using the menu system of the camera. 

You can hook into that functionality via the API and do cool things...but then your on your own, as you rightly should be. So sorry, don't buy and never will buy the line that Canon Marketing is the sole reason that certain features of their cameras are disabled. That kind of thinking steps from a mentality steeped in anticoproration crap, and I honestly cannot stand that sort of thing. It's naive. Go work in a large company like Canon for a year...the politics and turf and dominions wars will make your ears and eyes bleed...


----------



## Marauder (Aug 19, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Marauder said:
> ...



Noted!


----------



## unfocused (Aug 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> What concrete evidence do you have that the Canon marketing department had "them" do anything? That makes no logical sense. I've worked for a number of very large companies, and dealt with marketing people. NOT ONCE has a marketing person EVER told me what to do. The politics in most large companies simply won't allow that kind of thing to happen. Such a demand would have to go through umpteen channels, up then down then up again when the demand steps on someone elses turf and gets kicked back.
> 
> Sorry, but I find the whole notion that Canon Marketing is making demands of the engineering or product development side of Canon to be laughable.



Most people haven't any idea whatsoever what marketing departments do. They just repeat myths because they think it makes them sound pure or superior. 

It's particularly ironic for any photographer to demean marketing because, with the possible exception of a few highly technical applications, photography is all marketing all the time. 

In any well-run enterprise, and I consider Canon a well-run enterprise, the marketing department is the biggest customer advocate you can find.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> What concrete evidence do you have that the Canon marketing department had "them" do anything? That makes no logical sense. I've worked for a number of very large companies, and dealt with marketing people. NOT ONCE has a marketing person EVER told me what to do. The politics in most large companies simply won't allow that kind of thing to happen. Such a demand would have to go through umpteen channels, up then down then up again when the demand steps on someone elses turf and gets kicked back.



Well it depends upon what exactly you mean by the marketing term.
I just mean as opposed to the engineers.
I seriously doubt any engineer would think oh gee I better remove this MFA I just spent this time perfecting from the 40D. Or gee I better make sure to limit the fast min shutter speed in the 5D3 AutoISO Av shutter speed to happen to be just low enough to not really be useful even though it would have taken, if anything a few seconds less time, to have not put the limit in at all.

I seen and heard tale of all too many times where the whole MBA/manager/marketing types just come in and force the engineers to muck it all up. Or keep saying, no not yet, not yet, not yet, gotta milk more, gotta milk more.

And they do come up with all sort of schemes to calculate how they can minimize what they give without quite pushing people over the edge of leaving, which can be very annoying to those trying to push tech forward.

It's a totally different mindset.





> From what I've found and read about MFA in older cameras (40D, 30D), it was something that may have been designed just for service center use. Assuming that's the case, then the functionality was included in the 40D, but not as a consumer function. As someone who has used BackyardEOS, an astrophotography software tool, for about six months now, I can attest to the fact that Canon includes a LOT of functionality in their firmware that is not directly accessible by menu options in the camera. When you dig into the Canon APIs, you learn that a whole range of awesome things are possible using it.



from what I heard it didn't seem to be that sort of thing at all, but basically what they put in the higher level cam and later the 50D




> You can hook into that functionality via the API and do cool things...but then your on your own, as you rightly should be. So sorry, don't buy and never will buy the line that Canon Marketing is the sole reason that certain features of their cameras are disabled. That kind of thinking steps from a mentality steeped in anticoproration crap, and I honestly cannot stand that sort of thing. It's naive. Go work in a large company like Canon for a year...the politics and turf and dominions wars will make your ears and eyes bleed...



How is it naive, as you just said, it will make your ears and eyes bleed (at least if you are in engineering).

Maybe you are reading too much into my use of marketing, thinking I mean a single person who is preparing some ad campaign or a few reps who go to trade shows. I was casting a very, very wide net with how I was using the term.


----------



## jrista (Aug 19, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > What concrete evidence do you have that the Canon marketing department had "them" do anything? That makes no logical sense. I've worked for a number of very large companies, and dealt with marketing people. NOT ONCE has a marketing person EVER told me what to do. The politics in most large companies simply won't allow that kind of thing to happen. Such a demand would have to go through umpteen channels, up then down then up again when the demand steps on someone elses turf and gets kicked back.
> ...



You seem to have only "heard", I am guessing third hand, about these "things" that "must" occur in companies like Canon. I've worked for some very large corporations in the past, and no one guy or no one group in one division has ultimate veto power over another division. You don't have a marketing group (and, BTW, most major companies have exactly that, a marketing group that puts together the companies entire public image) trumping the engineering group for ANY reason. The management team of the engineering group simply wouldn't allow it. Your throwing FAR too broad a net over "marketers" if your definition is that broad. You seem to simply mean "business people", and that is just plain and simply too general to be meaningful, and I am guessing that's the intent. 

"Marketers" don't rule Canon. They aren't dictating to the engineers what to or not to put into or take out of a product. Product engineers are going to decide that, and they will usually be part of the overarching engineering teams, R&D, etc. In my experience, higher ups, upper management and executive types, don't want to know all the specific little nuanced details about the work that is being done. They often don't want to know the details at all. They want to know that they have a solid product that will sell. Those executives rely on other levels of management to manage all the details, who they themselves will usually rely on other levels of management to handle different groups of details, and they in turn will usually rely on other levels of management to actually handle the people making the details happen. There isn't some evil force at a company like Canon snickering in a corner office somewhere, saying: "Meheheheeee. Let's....REMOVE AFMA from the 40D! Yeah! That'll keep em coming back to the 50D!! Yeah! That'll sell us some more cammies!! MEEEHEHEHEHEHEEEE!"

Sorry...that's just ludicrous. It's backasswards economics. It's backasswards marketing. It's backasswards management. It's just plain backasswards period. That's not how the organisms that are big companies think. That kind of thinking is BAD for business. Maybe that kind of thing worked a few decades ago, but customers are savvy people these days. Corporate juggernaughts like Google can't even slip by clever snaky wording in their EULA's any more, because you have EULA hawks EVERYWHERE picking those things apart. You can't accidentally serve a hair in a salad at any high end restaurant and hope to survive anymore, because you have scathing eaterie reviewers out there who hunt around for just that kind of thing. And all of these people blog, or are journalists, or something...the majority have twitter, and they all use those internet outlets to call out companies when they are REALLY caught doing something nasty like that. Companies aren't going to pull the wool over their customers eyes anymore. The internet has changed the game, customers have far more power today to stop underhanded tactics like that, simply by being vocal, and secondarily by voting with their wallets when people at large are vocal about something particularly underhanded done by one company or another. 

So sorry, but nah. Office politics PREVENT some unit, say "marketers", from dominating the rest of the company. The management staff of an R&D unit or other engineering unit aren't just going to lay down and say "Aww, oh, ok, fine."...they FIGHT! I've seen some crazy office politics and hardcore inter-departmental fights in my time. Everyone has their domain, their turf, and they don't just let people walk all over it for no good reason. I don't believe anyone at Canon is purposely forcing engineers to "muck it all up", forcing them to delay features, etc. Canon may have certain rules about features that they intend to keep "premium", such as AF-point linked metering. That's a simple business decision, not some evil plot to milk their customers for all they are worth, based on the simple fact that, given it's been over a decade, and people buying Rebels and xxD's plain and simply don't seem to care. Owners of the 7D and 5D lines have been a little vocal about getting that feature, however I only know of a handful of people who complain about it a lot. AF-point linked metering falls into like 12th place after a long line of other things people would prefer Canon improve (including, apparently, the addition of a touch ui to all pro-grade DSLRs), all of which come after improved sensor IQ. Maybe someday Canon implements better metering...but my suspicion is the first thing they are going to invest time and money into is the thing people ask for most by a significant margin. If Canon was purposely gimping features for some underhanded purpose, either in an effort to be anticompetitive or somehow "keep customers coming back for more" (although how that would possibly work, when the digital camera market place is chock full of heated competition meaning most consumers, who are the vast bulk of the bottom line, can just jump ship and move to another brand on a moments notice when a bunch of reviewers tell them to...I don't know), someone would have gathered up a bunch of evidence and outed them by now. I mean, for christ sake, your saying Canon has purposely been withholding features for the express purpose of milking their customers for all their worth...*for a decade.* The internet would have destroyed them for that by now, if it was actually indeed occurring.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> You seem to have only "heard", I am guessing third hand, about these "things" that "must" occur in companies like Canon.



Wrong. First and second hand as well as third hand.




> Your throwing FAR too broad a net over "marketers" if your definition is that broad.



As I said I did cast a pretty wide net with the term.
And many who are not strictly in some official marketing department make marketing-type decisions all the time.







> There isn't some evil force at a company like Canon snickering in a corner office somewhere, saying: "Meheheheeee. Let's....REMOVE AFMA from the 40D! Yeah! That'll keep em coming back to the 50D!! Yeah! That'll sell us some more cammies!! MEEEHEHEHEHEHEEEE!"



actually there can be and no it is not ludicrous



> That kind of thinking is BAD for business.



it can be in the long run, many are too driven by the short term, or make calculations and decide they can weather this and that and despite negative reactions it won't hurt in the end etc.

companies are far from always perfectly and ideally run, big players become small players, companies disappear






> I don't believe anyone at Canon is purposely forcing engineers to "muck it all up", forcing them to delay features, etc.



Stuff like that has happened at Lucent at times. It happened at Atari and CBM and on and on and on and on. (specifically being careful to mention companies that are no longer around or not in any remote form as they used to be just to keep it safe)
You must be kidding if you think management never tells engineering to sit on stuff and hold off.




> Canon may have certain rules about features that they intend to keep "premium", such as AF-point linked metering. That's a simple business decision, not some evil plot to milk their customers for all they are worth,



it depends upon the specifics and how you see it


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 19, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to have only "heard", I am guessing third hand, about these "things" that "must" occur in companies like Canon.
> ...



Don't forget to add Kodak to this list. Their engineers invented digital photography, they had a trump in their hands to shape the future, but their management gambled it away.


----------



## Ivar (Aug 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> .. The lenses are truly to die for.



Canon lenses are indeed above else (well with some minor exceptions e.g. Nikon 14-24, some Zeiss stuff).

Now as a Nikon owner I feel even primes are not that good. Lack of 1.2 aperture in the choice, 35mm 1.4 there should be much less distortion for that kind of lens. The Nikon 70-200 is breathing a lot at the long end and the locking distance is 5m rather than 2.5m etc.etc.

I still keep watching Canon's advancements though I feel there is less and less excitement going on (for me). 
Nevertheless Canon seem to be doing fine and is a good choice for many.


----------



## jrista (Aug 19, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to have only "heard", I am guessing third hand, about these "things" that "must" occur in companies like Canon.
> ...



The only time I've ever heard management ever tell an engineering team to hold off on anything, was when a scheduled production or RTM date was in jeopardy. Most of the time, it's the other way around, management is always pushing for more, better, faster, better! It's a hypercompetitive world out there, not just on a domestic scale but now on a global scale. Any company, particularly one in a position like Canon, would be suicidal to purposefully limit the functionality of any product FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF "trying to keep their customers coming back for more in future models." 

That's what I'm arguing against...the notion that Canon is holding back features to attract customers to future product releases. That is what I find excessively naive. There may be LEGITIMATE business reasons why Canon might delay a feature. The largest of those, in my humble yet educated opinion, is when a product release date may slip. It's one thing to hold off on tertiary features to make a release, and another thing to hold off on critical or essential features. The 1D X was delayed not because they were specially adding AF-linked metering to it...it was delayed because they were working on the AF system, a fundamentally critical system of the camera. Ultimately, if getting the AF system working period in a reasonable timeframe after their "paper announcement" meant holding off on making AF-linked metering to work, I'm sure Canon would have made that decision. But that would be a BUSINESS decision, one that affects the health of the company and their reputation in general...it wouldn't be some snivling underhanded attempt to pre-garner future sales on the 1D X II. That's just a ludicrous, backwards way of thinking about things. 

Now, can management teams make bad decisions? Certainly! You named a few companies that had plain and simple bad management, little foresight, a poor competitive edge, and ultimately failed because of it. Amiga is an excellent example of a company that just had crappy management...people who did not know how to formulate a product line that would compete in a changing market. At least, they didn't figure it out until much too late in the game. A significant part of that problem was developing the AmigaOS...there were difficulties in developing that for the RISC platform, which lead to very long development cycles, ultimately resulting in AmigaOS falling far behind Windows on the PC. The other problem with Amiga was the simple fact that it WAS built on RISC processors...Motorola RISC processors specifically. When Motorola left that market, Amiga was left high and dry. The only other real option a the time was PA-RISC, but given the difficulties in developing AmigaOS in the first place, a move to PA-RISC ultimately never occurred. Amiga management missed their window of opportunity, their product was selling extremely well in Europe until the bottom simply fell out, and they never really got a solid foothold in the US. Amiga management did not take the PC competition seriously until it was too late, then they were too inflexible, because of processor architecture, poor product design, etc. to be able to compete with the lightning pace at which the PC evolved from the late 80's/early 90's through the early 2000's. 

However, failing to be competitive because you built a rigid system architecture and did not really recognize your most significant threat until it was too late, is different than purposely gimping your products to "bring your customers back for more in the 'next release' of Product X". The former is just bad management...and that does happen. The latter is just plain idiotic and terribly bad economic and business practice, and is GUARANTEED to ruin your company. It would take the most incompetent of management staff to come up with an idea like that, to purposely withhold features in a COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE with the unproven hope that you'll somehow keep your current customers and bring them, as well as new customers, back for more with the next round of releases. In reality, the exact opposite is going to happen...a competitor is going to leverage your idiocy for their own benefit, and steal all your customers away. 

To be strait up, I DO NOT believe that Canon management is incompetent on that level. If they were, they wouldn't be the world's top digital camera seller, and they wouldn't be raking in billions in revenue every year. I have no doubt that Canon knows what their primary competitive weaknesses are, and I have hopes that they have already addressed them, and I know for a fact that if they have not, they ARE addressing them (the multi-layered sensor patents, for example, are a good solid indication that Canon is innovating in the sensor market.) I think Canon is smart enough to know where they should be investing their resources, and I think they are smart enough to know what features they CAN "hold hostage" to a premium product model without losing customers over it. In that respect, clearly, AF-linked metering is one of the features that Canon currently believes they can keep as a premium feature only on the 1D line. That could very well change...Canon certainly changed their stance on f/8 AF by putting it in the 5D III...but there was a very vocal call for that first. I heard far more about getting f/8 AF on the 5D III than I've ever heard about people demanding AF-point linked metering.

As an action shooter who relies on the AF system heavily, I personally have never actually found a need for it, however I learned how to shoot from the pros....like Art Morris, Alan Murphy, etc. and when it comes to exposure, I control it. A couple very simple techniques make it a lot easier to nail exposure every time such that a meter isn't even necessary. In a context like sports in a stadium, you can just figure out your baseline and simply compensate from there, since artificial lighting illuminates the playing field from pretty much every angle. You can always reset to the same baseline, and adjust aperture/shutter as necessary for the DOF you want.

Canon isn't a petty corporation. They are not a corporation utterly driven by the short term (if they were, they wouldn't be one of THE MOST innovative companies in the world.)

I am pretty sure Canon knows what the competition is doing and where the competition is winning. The only question is WHEN will they address it. The 7D II will be the first major indicator of that, and after that, the 5D IV will be the final indicator. If Canon hasn't started competing on the sensor IQ front by the time the 5D IV hits...then I'll have to reevaluate my opinion of their management, because sensor IQ is by far, by orders of magnitude, more important to their customers than AF-linked metering or Auto ISO functionality. It is the single most verbalized issue with Canon's photographic products. Canon will either listen to their customer's collective voice (and they have done just that on many occasions in the past)...or they will ignore it. I don't think Canon is another Amiga...Amiga really had terrible management. However Canon may be too comfortable, they may just be riding the wave of past success...and that could be a problem. (However, that STILL doesn't mean Canon's management is sitting in their corner offices plotting ways they can keep their customers coming back for more by withholding features...that would be SUICIDE for them in the current market environment!)


----------



## unfocused (Aug 19, 2014)

+1 to Jon's points.

I would only add that Canon is not some new tech startup that is trying to cash in on unrealistic market expectations. They are an innovative, but generally conservative company that has slowly, over decades, built themselves up to become the market leaders in a highly competitive and at times very crowded field. 

I'm old enough to remember the days when Canon was just one of a dozen or more consumer SLR manufacturers on a par with Miranda, Mamiya, Pentax, Konica and many others. They methodically built their brand, first by replacing others as the chief competitor to Nikon for professionals. 

They managed to outlive almost all of their consumer competitors, most of whom ended up going out of business and selling off the brand name to new investors.

They set about displacing Nikon as the top brand. To anyone who was alive in the late 1960s or early 1970s, the thought of Canon eventually outpacing Nikon seemed impossible. But they did it. Not overnight, but slowly and deliberately. 

Comparing them to flash-in-the-pan tech companies that were conceived, born, lived and died in a fraction of the time that Canon has been around, is a gross underestimation of the skill that Canon's management has developed over the years.


----------



## AvTvM (Aug 19, 2014)

unfocused said:


> They are an innovative, but generally conservative company that has slowly, over decades, built themselves up to become the market leaders in a highly competitive and at times very crowded field.



Canon has been innovative exactly 2 times in all of their history. They started out as a an utterly un-innovative japanese copy cat of german cameras and remained jist that for the first 30 years of their history.

The 2 innovative feats were:
* 1987 ... ditch the FD mount and bring a fully electronic , new mount: EF. they did not listen to theri ultra-conservative user base who were crying over their nice FD SSC lenses. Canon for once did, what was necessary: radically break with the past. Screw mechanical crap in the lens mount. Make it all electronic. Choose a good flange diostance and make the freaking hole large enough to enable all sorts of great lenese, including "still affordable" f/1.2 lenses and carry them into the electronic and then digital future. That move along with the parallel decision to put AF into the lens, not the body and quickly recover from their initial AF disaster [T80 anyone? ;-) ] and their ability to sell the advantages of that concept really well, got them to trump Nikon and become market leader.

* 2003 - digital Rebel - first truly affordable DSLR ... under 1k €/USD. Preceded since 2000 by the decision to use CMSO sensors, when everybody else thought of CCDs to be a way better solution for imaging sensors. Agaion preceded by the unrewarding mucking around in the 1990 with Kodak (all that DCS crap) -... which convinced Canon that they needed full control over the entire digital camera stuff, including their own sensor fabs. Those desicions got Canon massive market leadership in the first half of the 2000's decade. 

Unfortunately bold, true innovation has ceased quite rapidly after after that and Canon today is an arrogant, fat, bloated japanese corporation run by a typical geriatric ward. Risk-averse down to theri last toenail. Slow, bureaucratic and encrusted. It will take quite some pain (= a copule of catastrophic balance sheets) to bring them to their senses and back onto the innovation track. Abandon DSLRs (except 1 series for people who really need those to hammer nails into walls and drop behind behind enemy lines and use 600/4 superteles handheld all day long) and fully embrace mirrorless. One great APS-C lineup - good EF-M lenses are there and the EOS-M has the right size and just needs a good upgrade and expansion (EVF, AF, battery charge). Plus ditching of the EF mount and a new, kick-ass Sony A7 killing compact line of ultra-capable FF mirrorless bodies and new native lenses. The desicion does not take that many guts as the one back in 1987, since the flange distance wil be shorter this time round, so cheap adapters without any optical elements will suffice to ease the transition. ;D


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 19, 2014)

EF mount and the Rebel line are the only innovations you can think of?

How about image stabilization, ultrasonic motors, a relatively inexpensive full-frame digital body, and high-def video in SLRs?

How about eye-controlled focus, and diffractive optics?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 19, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> EF mount and the Rebel line are the only innovations you can think of?
> 
> How about image stabilization, ultrasonic motors, a relatively inexpensive full-frame digital body, and high-def video in SLRs?
> 
> How about eye-controlled focus, and diffractive optics?



How about DPAF? Etc. 

I think AvTvM's definition of innovation means making the exact specific camera he wants...


----------



## AvTvM (Aug 19, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> EF mount and the Rebel line are the only innovations you can think of?
> How about image stabilization, ultrasonic motors, a relatively inexpensive full-frame digital body, and high-def video in SLRs?
> How about eye-controlled focus, and diffractive optics?



reasonable Video capabilities (5D II) really only happened to Canon. It was definitely not their innovation. Magic Lantern were the innovative ones, if anybody. 

Image stabilization ... no Canon invention. 
Ultrasonic AF drive .. no Canon invention.
Hi-def video in DSLRs .. hardly much of an innovation. Those who need it shall buy proper video cams. Should not be forced on regular DSLR buyers. 

Eye Controlled AF ... yes. very nice. but last seen 20 years ago. If Canon were so innovative to bring us a working v.2 ECF in all future cameras (with viewfinder) ... I'd definitely love it.


----------



## DominoDude (Aug 19, 2014)

Oh, how glad I am that Canon isn't developing new items based on a way too narrow client base. I'm perfectly happy that not all Canon gear suits me, but that they have a broad portfolio so that (nearly) everyone can get what they like and need.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 19, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Image stabilization ... no Canon invention.


"The Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (Japan)[255] of 1995 was the first interchangeable lens with built-in image stabilization"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photographic_lens_design#The_image_stabilized_lens



> Ultrasonic AF drive .. no Canon invention.


"Canon was the first camera maker to successfully commercialise the USM technology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_lens_mount#Ultrasonic_motor_drive



> Hi-def video in DSLRs .. hardly much of an innovation.


It practically created a whole industry over night.



> Those who need it shall buy proper video cams. Should not be forced on regular DSLR buyers.


Show me a full-frame video camera at the cost of the 5DII when it was released. Forcing it on regular DSLR buyers reduces the cost of the bodies substantially.

And, diffractive optics.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > EF mount and the Rebel line are the only innovations you can think of?
> ...



Which, apparently, is a 300D.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > EF mount and the Rebel line are the only innovations you can think of?
> ...



He also skipped over the AE-1. Not the first SLR with auto-exposure, but the first one that was successful at it. Canon saw the future and put it into their cameras at a time when all the other major SLR manufacturers thought just having a meter in the camera was cutting edge.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 19, 2014)

And, while we are on the topic of innovation, is there any other manufacturer making a flash with radio trigger built in?


----------



## Marauder (Aug 19, 2014)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Yeah and the A-1, the first camera with a P mode, that has become one of the constants on all modern cameras--although I'm sure that some snide comment about P mode being for "losers anyway" or something is in the offing. The rant about going all but exclusively to mirrorless tells me where the mindset is--and it's nowhere I want to go! Again, as I've stated before, I don't have anything against mirrorless--it's certainly an area Canon can and should explore. But the idea that mirrorless is the ONLY way forward for interchangeable lens cameras is patently absurd--and arrogant. At least IMO.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 19, 2014)

Marauder said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Oh yeah, and the command dial. And the basic form for an SLR or DSLR that the T90 introduced, that then became the format for EVERY OTHER SLR and DSLR made subsequently. Yeah, but Canon's not innovative. Troll alert!


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 19, 2014)

Does anyone else have a full sensor full of dual-pixel phase-detection capable pixels?


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 20, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> reasonable Video capabilities (5D II) really only happened to Canon. It was definitely not their innovation. Magic Lantern were the innovative ones, if anybody.



Yes...the firmware is everything. The sensor and hardware mean nothing :



> Image stabilization ... no Canon invention.



Canon advanced and deployed it faster then anyone else. 



> Ultrasonic AF drive .. no Canon invention.



Canon was first to market and advanced/deployed it faster then anyone else. It literally won them the pro sports market which they hold to this day.

If you use a narrow enough definition of "invent", most consumer technology is not "invented" by the companies that produce it. They can trace their work back to various scientific discoveries. Competitors are often close when it comes to R&D and file slightly different patents for the same thing. Not to mention companies buying one another, sharing patents, etc.

This is idiotic though because it's usually quite obvious when one company pioneers a new technology and gets it into the public's hands. I'm not sure who discovered the sonic motor configuration. But Canon very clearly pioneered its use in consumer photographic lenses. It wasn't until the late 2000's that Nikon started to deploy sonic motors to the degree that Canon had by the late 1990's!



> Hi-def video in DSLRs .. hardly much of an innovation. Those who need it shall buy proper video cams. Should not be forced on regular DSLR buyers.



"It's not what I want so it doesn't count!" :


----------



## jrista (Aug 20, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Image stabilization ... no Canon invention.
> ...



Totally agree. Canon has been a highly innovative company for decades. The simple fact that they were successful in making a diffractive optics lens is an amazing feat, given that they were pretty much a laughing stock among high end optics companies for even trying. 

Even where Canon was not the first to innovate something, or the first to use it in SLR/DSLR/digital camera equipment, they were very often the first to make features viable and bring them to the masses at reasonable cost (i.e. AF with EOS.)

It's pretty amazing how one single thing, not having two additional stops of low ISO sensor DR, is all it took for everyone to forget all the other innovations, technological advancements, and general leadership in the industry Canon has made throughout their history as a photography company. :


----------



## jrista (Aug 20, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Does anyone else have a full sensor full of dual-pixel phase-detection capable pixels?



Not yet. However, based on some of the patents and other announcements of technology that have floated through the imagesensorsworld blog, Omnivision and Sony, and I think maybe Fuji, all seem to have competition for DPAF in the works. 

I think most of that stuff is for small form factor sensors, and a lot of those sensors are now being directed towards the automotive market (high res, wide field, rear-view video cameras have suddenly become booming business and everyone wants a piece of it), but one of them, maybe Omni?, was saying they were making a larger format sensor with a form of dual-pixel technology.

Massively competitive market out there...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> It's pretty amazing how one single thing, not having two additional stops of low ISO sensor DR, is all it took for everyone to forget all the other innovations, technological advancements, and general leadership in the industry Canon has made throughout their history as a photography company. :



Certainly not everyone. Not the majority of dSLR buyers. Mostly, just the DRones conveniently forget. ???


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> At least, they didn't figure it out until much too late in the game. A significant part of that problem was developing the AmigaOS...there were difficulties in developing that for the RISC platform, which lead to very long development cycles, ultimately resulting in AmigaOS falling far behind Windows on the PC. The other problem with Amiga was the simple fact that it WAS built on RISC processors...Motorola RISC processors specifically. When Motorola left that market, Amiga was left high and dry. The only other real option a the time was PA-RISC, but given the difficulties in developing AmigaOS in the first place, a move to PA-RISC ultimately never occurred. Amiga management missed their window of opportunity, their product was selling extremely well in Europe until the bottom simply fell out, and they never really got a solid foothold in the US. Amiga management did not take the PC competition seriously until it was too late, then they were too inflexible, because of processor architecture, poor product design, etc. to be able to compete with the lightning pace at which the PC evolved from the late 80's/early 90's through the early 2000's.



Well I think that is a bit distorted. The initial most serious problem was way back in the Atari days when Atari had the basic tech for the Amiga. The Atari engineers wanted to move forward with the advanced tech they had under the wings, but Atari management said there was no need. We just wanna make more money and keep milking what we have. The Atari 8bits are selling well, we don't need to spend any money, why bother moving things forward? 

But imagine if they had listened to the engineers begging them to move forward ASAP. Suddenly this crazy powerful computer drops on the market and actually has a shot despite the dirty tricks of Apple/MS/IBM, it probably would've simply too much for those companies to obfuscate the truth over. Instead by the time Atari lost the tech and CBM managed to snare it and get it finished and out, the MAC had already landed. Now sure the Amiga was better six ways to Sunday, but with the story that Jobs and Gates had woven to the public about how 'toy' companies like Atari and CBM are nothing to be bothered about and how one should pay more money (for less) to get a 'real' computer if one wanted to be 'real' and 'serious' simply having a machine out there with a fancy GUI interface to an OS and a fast 68000 chip inside and the Apple name on front (and Gates name and a new semi-decently pseudo, a little bit fast Intel chip on the other side) they had enough to play the game and, aided by just generally poor CBM management, keep the Amiga (and later the inferior but still better than the other stuff, Atari ST) hidden under the covers as it were. BYTE magazine made a huge deal about the Amiga in a 1985 issue and that was about the only splash the machine was ever allowed to get in the U.S. The power players squashed it and quieted down the press and the sheep made up a large proportion of the computer store salesforce and it it never caught on to the degree it needed to in the U.S. (although it managed to do fairly well in Europe, at least solely as a home computer, in time).

I'm not sure if you want to really call the 68000 a RISC CPU, although it was a bit more like one than say a modern Intel/AMD found in most machines today.

But then even still the engineers wanted more down with the machines and eventually wanted to move to a new updated custom chipset sooner, but dither, dither, dither and eventually they just got a half-baked intermediate chipset out rather late. Still more impressive than the competition, but the war had so been lost by them, they needed the earth-shattering design and needed it sooner.

By the time they eventually ported AmigaOS to the PowerPC chips after the MC680x0 line ran it's course that was so, so late in the game, most of the battle had long been shot. It is a bit unfortunate that the Intel chipsets and the interrupt methods and etc. etc. made porting of certain types of advanced OS over to Intel architecture trickier, it could be done, but would take some time and money and they didn't make a start and didn't spend. Although with fantastic management it's not impossible it may have been able to rise. People did get sick of Windows and Apple and Linux rose up to an extent and the AmigaOS had within itself a lot more promise than Linux (so did BeOS, have a lot more promise than Linux as an alternative). But again, so often in tech, the best doesn't become mainstream or make it.

The PC clones and Apple actually evolved at a snails pace. Just remember Amiga already had a full GUI OS with a power shell interface to an advanced pre-emptive multi-tasking OS already back in 1985. It tooks years upon years for Apple and Microsoft to finally manage to put decent multi-tasking into their OSes. And it took years for the clone hardware makers to finally push past the primitive Apple II-like basic hardware conceptions and move to custom graphics bus and autoconfig hardware systems and advanced DMA controllers and get the mish-mash of sound and graphics third party hardware organized in a way that could be reliably controlled almost as if all machines used the same custom hardware chipsets and it took a lot of power for the non to the metal programming through graphics libraries to overcome the huge speed penalties by not writing straight to the hardware (OTOH the freedom of the non to the metal let a few third party graphics guys then explode forth and have the cash and sales to then drive graphics hardware forward at a terrific rate and at some point that proved to be a bit better than the main maker using sole proprietary hardware system to drive things forward and eventually, now we have a bit of the best of both worlds, lots of the fancy system architecture originally imagined by the original atari/amiga kinda guys mixed with advanced custom chipsets but not proprietary and locked into a single set or two (although today we are basically down to Nvidia or AMD so it's almost proprietary in a sense, but they can drive many different levels of chipsets and old and new all at once through the libraries in uniform fashion which is different).

And it also took crazy fast CPUs to overcome the hideous bloated programming used to produce Windows OS. at one point in time it was said that I think just to do a single task switch Apple OS and Windows OS had to run through 4x and 16x times the code just to do the same thing as in AmigaOS, I forget at his point whether it was Apple or Windows that was the 4x vs the 16x). Heck a 16Mhz 68020 based AmigaOS machine had much of the OS feeling at least as snappy as a 130Mhz Intel Windows box circa 1999 (although obviously stuff like decoding a jpg would be much fast on the 130Mhz machine). And we are stuck with the nasty registry system on Windows, the source of much of the horror and nightmare of a Windows box. And the archaic dynamic library system and some other core components of Windows, especially, but even with Apple/Linux.




> However, failing to be competitive because you built a rigid system architecture and did not really recognize your most significant threat until it was too late, is different than purposely gimping your products to "bring your customers back for more in the 'next release' of Product X".



They didn't fail to realize the threat. APple and IBM clones and such were selling better from day 1 and they were a threat from before it ever got released. And they did gimp things. Atari put them off and put them and off and wanted to milk the 8bits and they dribbled out cheap to produce little 8bit updates while sitting on advanced stuff. CBM kept putting off updated the chipsets and carrying out other things and sitting on stuff that should've been done too. And they didn't make a good go at swapping certain architecture elements at the end either.



> The former is just bad management...and that does happen. The latter is just plain idiotic and terribly bad economic and business practice, and is GUARANTEED to ruin your company. It would take the most incompetent of management staff to come up with an idea like that, to purposely withhold features in a COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE with the unproven hope that you'll somehow keep your current customers and bring them, as well as new customers, back for more with the next round of releases. In reality, the exact opposite is going to happen...a competitor is going to leverage your idiocy for their own benefit, and steal all your customers away.



And yet it happens. Atari did that to a huge degree. And they did more or less go out of business. CBM did it to some extent. And they are out of business. Nokia sat on tons patents and ideas. Kodak sat on a lot of stuff.
etc. etc.

Canon is sitting on lots of patents (granted some might take a good deal of money to be able to implement even more than some of the stuff mentioned above would have).

And they certainly play all sorts of silly little games with things like AutoISO and MFA and basic video usability features and it is certainly curious why magic lantern can get radically more detailed video out of the 5D3 than the 5D3 is able to produce with the firmware as shipped (although maybe that is simply down to DIGIC being utterly abysmal at processing images to high quality, it's hard to say).




> To be strait up, I DO NOT believe that Canon management is incompetent on that level.



Maybe not to that level and it may take them more expense and risk to implement more stuff than it would have some of the other companies.

But they have even made statements, on video tape and shown on youtube and such, where they have been caught saying stuff like why in the world do we need to bother putting out a high performance FF body, sure we can we are kings, but we are kings so we have no need, Nikon doesn't even have a FF so why do we need to bother, we will sit, we have no need. I mean they obviously could've charged forward back some years ago and just made Nikon look beyond silly, but they played conservative instead (maybe it's just as well though as Nikon might have been barely around by now and maybe with little pressure it would be ages for Canon to ever think about improving DR and such).



> Canon isn't a petty corporation. They are not a corporation utterly driven by the short term (if they were, they wouldn't be one of THE MOST innovative companies in the world.)



the little MFA and AutoISO games and such demonstrate a bit otherwise




> I don't think Canon is another Amiga...Amiga really had terrible management.



Yeah I'm not saying that and the camera business is a bit more locked in and safe so even acting like that it's harder to get hit like that, plus it's tricky for other companies to buy out press and pull snow jobs over the public when it comes to camera performance the way Apple and IBM and Microfsoft were able to do, so it's certainly quite a different scenario. But there are light hints of it.



> However Canon may be too comfortable, they may just be riding the wave of past success...and that could be a problem. (However, that STILL doesn't mean Canon's management is sitting in their corner offices plotting ways they can keep their customers coming back for more by withholding features...that would be SUICIDE for them in the current market environment!)



you can see little hints of the latter though in the dribblings out of certain minor features and talk of well if we do the sensor this time we can hold back on the body performance and if we do the body performance this time we can get away with not spending to go to new fabs yet, etc. and yeah the $$ calculations are different than in the examples above though

and they certainly could've charged the video farther, faster, they really caught the film (movie) guys by storm and they begged for them to charge forward and dominate, but they played the regular game and

anyway I'm certainly not saying that Canon will be a mere shell in a couple years as happened with Atari

i am saying that I don't think it was the engineers who wanted to put in silly little limits on min auto iso shutter speeds and so on and so forth, it's the other guys who tend to order that kinda stuff to be done and in some cases the other also do tell them to sit on stuff so they can milk the current stuff more (it's all a balance, don't sit long enough leave a bit of money on the table, sit way too long and totally blow it long or even semi-short term)


----------



## DominoDude (Aug 20, 2014)

BTW: Does anyone know who invented the hybrid IS that is incorporated in the 100/2.8L IS USM macro? And how many other brands use that in any of their lenses?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 20, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Comparing them to flash-in-the-pan tech companies that were conceived, born, lived and died in a fraction of the time that Canon has been around, is a gross underestimation of the skill that Canon's management has developed over the years.



I'm not meaning to compare them to such tech companies, this is a different business. I was just using those (which are all safely old history) as arguments that the marketing/managers/etc. DO at times muddle up what the engineers want and hold back big stuff and so on and so forth.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 20, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> BTW: Does anyone know who invented the hybrid IS that is incorporated in the 100/2.8L IS USM macro? And how many other brands use that in any of their lenses?



atari ;D


----------



## jrista (Aug 20, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> But they have even made statements, on video tape and shown on youtube and such, where they have been caught saying stuff like why in the world do we need to bother putting out a high performance FF body, sure we can we are kings, but we are kings so we have no need, Nikon doesn't even have a FF so why do we need to bother, we will sit, we have no need. I mean they obviously could've charged forward back some years ago and just made Nikon look beyond silly, but they played conservative instead (maybe it's just as well though as Nikon might have been barely around by now and maybe with little pressure it would be ages for Canon to ever think about improving DR and such).



Your going to have to actually back that up with some links to those actual videos. There is no way Canon would have that stance in any official capacity. I could understand some idiot boneheaded employee voicing his own personal opinion, but Canon officially having that stance sounds ludicrous to me. 

That's the same as your "Some random Canon rep at some random conference said such and such." That's just hearsay, and it's highly doubtful the rep's opinion reflect's Canon's actual business plan. 



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> i am saying that I don't think it was the engineers who wanted to put in silly little limits on min auto iso shutter speeds and so on and so forth, it's the other guys who tend to order that kinda stuff to be done and in some cases the other also do tell them to sit on stuff so they can milk the current stuff more (it's all a balance, don't sit long enough leave a bit of money on the table, sit way too long and totally blow it long or even semi-short term)



I'm a software engineer myself. I've been doing this job for two decades. I've worked for a lot of companies, big, small, highly ambitious and just plain stupid. The one consistent theme from all of them? THEY ALL ASK FOR WAY TOO MUCH!!  Management people at competitive companies always have endless lists of things they want their engineers to do. It's a never ending parade of "Why isn't this done yet? We demanded that feature six months ago?! And where is the one from six months before that?!?!?" All the while, most of these corporations, all but those with the most ingenious and clever people in management who know how to actually manage and get things done, the management at these companies fails to realize that the continual overload of demands is what ultimately mucks up the works. One week Item A is the top priority, it absolutely without question MUST get done! Of course, the next week, Item B is the top priority, completely trumping Item A, and of course, it absolutely without question MUST get done! And so on, and so forth, week after week, month after month, year after year, companies that can't quite manage their goals, their demands, their production flow...never actually get anything done. Hmm...Atari? Amiga? Kodak? Nokia?

Canon, on the other hand, does get shit done. They are not a fast paced company, but they do achieve their goals. So does Nikon, actually, although at a faster...and in my opinion, more schizophrenic manner...and in a manner that has NOT improved their bottom line. But _*why *_do Canon and Nikon get things done? _Because they know where to cut. Because they know where to stop or hold back or slow down._ These are ESSENTIAL traits of successful companies...ones that don't crumble from the inside by sheer overload, not an indication of some evil executive mentality that just want's to milk their customers dry. They know where to say no. They know when they are tapped out, and cannot add any more load to teams of engineers, designers, manufacture, whoever, that are already working at capacity. 

In Canon's case, it's slow and steady, the tried and true. They are a more conservative company, so one shouldn't expect them to crank out new high end camera models every year. As far as Canon is concerned, from what I can gather about them via their public business practices, they don't like to shake things up that are working. Neither should they...things are working! A content beast is a beast slow to move. 

Nikon also knows the same thing. Just like Canon, they know where to cut. Nikon just cut different things. Instead of allocating their internal resources to the features and functionality of their products they deem most critical to their success, like Canon has likely done with say Auto ISO on lower end cameras...Nikon chose to cut out entire business processes like sensor manufacture and farm the bulk of that out to third parties. Nikon's business approach is quick and dirty...keep iterating on products and keep cranking em out. Of course...that's quick...*and dirty*. As evidenced by common themes that keep arising with Nikon's DSLRs....oil spots on the sensor, white spots on the D810, AF problems with the D800, etc. (Often many of these issues went unrecognized and unsupported by Nikon for months on end.)

Nikon's approach certainly gave them an edge in the short term. The real question is who's will maintain and grow revenues in the long term? Canon's policy has been very successful for the long term...however the one thing you've said that I agree with: They seem to be sitting on patents. SEEM being the operative word there...maybe they aren't, maybe it's just Canon's slower cycle that makes it seem that way. However if that doesn't change, then long term I think Canon could indeed face the same fate as Nokia and Kodak (at least in the photographic division...Canon has a lot of other lucrative businesses in the imaging world).

Still, back to the same old point...just because Canon has not actually implemented some of the patented technology they own does not mean they are doing it for the express purpose of trying to hold back features to keep customers coming back for more in future product releases. I think that's a ludicrous concept, and given how the management at all the various diverse companies I've worked for are always constantly shoving ideas and goals and plans and new features and new products down their engineers faces on a continuous basis, I think most companies would find it ludicrous as well. In the case of an innovative company like Canon, some technology proves to be too expensive to implement with current manufacturing capabilities and capacities. Some technology simply isn't viable. Some technology may be sound, but not necessarily competitive. I don't even believe Nokia or Kodak did that. Those companies had major internal communications disconnects. The left hand wasn't talking to the right...or worse, the left hand did not WANT to talk to the right. Internal turf wars and political battles are really what killed Nokia. All the while, while those turf wars and petty political games were going on, certain divisions just kept on plugging away....R&D centers just kept on innovating. They created some amazing technology, but because of their pettyness, higher level management was either blind to the powerful patent library they actually had, or were too deadlocked or distracted or just plain dumb to put it to good use. 

I don't think Canon is that kind of company. They innovate *and produce* products with their innovation...it's just at a slower pace than some of their competitors. At least, so it has seemed for a while now. I'm hoping that's still the case, that the 7D II and 5D IV (or whatever is next, maybe a BigMP camera) will be game changers for Canon. I hope Don is right about Canon winding down fabrication capacity on their better, newer fabs for point and shoot camera sensors, and reallocating it for APS-C and FF sensors. The next year or so will tell us what Canon has up their sleeve, and whether they bring more of the technology in their patent library to bear or not.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Well said Jon! As well as Neuro, Unfocused, dtaylor, Lee Jay and others. Canon has certainly been a very inventive and innovative company. And they will continue to be so!


----------



## scaptic (Aug 20, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Marauder said:
> ...



I'll trade 5 cases of the stuff for a 7D mark 2...


----------



## Marauder (Aug 20, 2014)

scaptic said:


> DominoDude said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I'll drink to that! (Of course, I'll drink to nearly anything, so it's not as meaningful as it might have been. LOL)


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 22, 2014)

x-vision said:


> You get cleaner shadows, which does contribute to better photographic DR as well.



"Cleaner shadows" has been subverted to equate to "better DR", but it's nothing of the sort: it's _just_ cleaner shadows.

Or can we say that if I know how to clean up the shadows in my Canon file's images (and for the record, I do - to a pretty damn' useful exent, while retaining detail) I'm "adding" DR?

Nope. I'm just cleaning the shadows...

By _exactly_ the same token, I don't claim that my old 7D has "better" DR than the old 5D simply because it doesn't generate the high ISO pattern noise that bedevilled the 5D.

Lower pattern noise _does not_ equal better DR, no matter how often, in low ISO, pushed shadow comparisons between Canon and Sony sensors, it's the lack of pattern noise from the Sonys that people latch onto.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 22, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Canon has been innovative exactly 2 times in all of their history.



That's truly _the_ most asinine, facile and just plain wrong-headed thing I think I've ever read on an internet forum.

Seriously - there should be a prize.


----------



## fragilesi (Aug 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> I'm a software engineer myself. I've been doing this job for two decades. I've worked for a lot of companies, big, small, highly ambitious and just plain stupid. The one consistent theme from all of them? THEY ALL ASK FOR WAY TOO MUCH!!  Management people at competitive companies always have endless lists of things they want their engineers to do. It's a never ending parade of "Why isn't this done yet? We demanded that feature six months ago?! And where is the one from six months before that?!?!?" All the while, most of these corporations, all but those with the most ingenious and clever people in management who know how to actually manage and get things done, the management at these companies fails to realize that the continual overload of demands is what ultimately mucks up the works. One week Item A is the top priority, it absolutely without question MUST get done! Of course, the next week, Item B is the top priority, completely trumping Item A, and of course, it absolutely without question MUST get done! And so on, and so forth, week after week, month after month, year after year, companies that can't quite manage their goals, their demands, their production flow...never actually get anything done. Hmm...Atari? Amiga? Kodak? Nokia?
> 
> Canon, on the other hand, does get S___ done. They are not a fast paced company, but they do achieve their goals. So does Nikon, actually, although at a faster...and in my opinion, more schizophrenic manner...and in a manner that has NOT improved their bottom line. But _*why *_do Canon and Nikon get things done? _Because they know where to cut. Because they know where to stop or hold back or slow down._ These are ESSENTIAL traits of successful companies...ones that don't crumble from the inside by sheer overload, not an indication of some evil executive mentality that just want's to milk their customers dry. They know where to say no. They know when they are tapped out, and cannot add any more load to teams of engineers, designers, manufacture, whoever, that are already working at capacity.



Very well said, having done the software engineering thing, the team leading thing, the project manager thing and now the manager thing it drives me crazy how most people in technical companies still don't realise less is normally more. Let a technical team concentrate on a small number of objectives and the chances are with good practices that you'll get good quality plus near budget and schedule completion. Continually jerk them around and change / add priorities and you end up getting a lot of so-so things to look at probably later than if you'd done them more linearly.

The amazing thing is that it's something that everyone knows to be true but manages to find ways to ignore. If I could figure out a cure for this kind of plum stupidity I'd be Wall Street's hottest property and be the most famous management consultant that ever walked the face of the planet! I can promise you it's not just a case of telling people ;D.

And often these "silly limits" mentioned elsewhere are put in at the engineer's insistence because he knows that in his schedule / budget he just can't get that to work right away or even at all. It's not just about management in that instance, it can be a good thing.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 22, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has been innovative exactly 2 times in all of their history.
> ...



I couldn't agree more!


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 22, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has been innovative exactly 2 times in all of their history.
> ...


Exactly.... it's at least 3 times 
Those thousands of patents came in a crackerjack box.....


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 29, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> Found a picture of the insides of the D300. Same full metal skeleton as the D800/1D/D4 so I don't really think this kind of build quality can be that expensive to produce.


Nice but our D300 died after only roughly 90.000 shutter actuations, its mirror mechanism is broken and repair cost would have overtopped its value. So its chassis is a nice coffin for a dead camera...


----------

