# Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 22, 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/2014/08/are-these-the-eos-7d-mark-ii-specifications/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Updated on August 28, 2014</strong>

Updates and clarifications on the specifications are in bold below.</p>
<p>We think we have the specifications for the upcoming Canon EOS 7D Mark II, we’re trying to authenticate things down to the CR3 level. We have been incorrect about previous features of the camera. For one, the top plate is not an “EOS-1 Style”, and the camera does not shoot 12fps. <strong>Previous sources have said the sensor does have new technology, but it is not multi-layer, <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/06/new-sensor-tech-in-eos-7d-mark-ii-cr2/" target="_blank">which is what we originally reported.</a> We have been thrown off by patents showing layered sensors. We can’t confirm at this time if there is indeed new technology in the sensor. Our source for this specification list just mentions the megapixel count.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Kit lenses: 18-135 IS STM and 15-85 IS (no STM)</li>
<li>CF, UDMA mode 7 + SD, UHS-I</li>
<li>GPS is in the camera</li>
<li>No WiFi</li>
<li>Fixed LCD, with no touch function.</li>
<li>20.2MP APS-C Sensor</li>
<li>Dual Pixel CMOS AF</li>
<li>Dual DIGIC 6 Processors</li>
<li>65 AF points “All Cross-type”. Dual cross on the center point.</li>
<li>f/8 on center point at least, could be on more points.</li>
<li>10fps</li>
<li>ISO 100-12800, ISO Boost mode 25600 and 51200</li>
<li>1080p/720p both get 60fps</li>
<li>Servo AF for video shooting.</li>
<li>Anti-flicker mode, eliminates flickers under flickering lights (e.g. fluorescent lamps).</li>
<li>Spot metering size 1.8%</li>
<li>Built-in flash</li>
<li>Mic and headphones connectors</li>
<li>Can sync time between 7D II cameras.</li>
<li>Lens electronic MF</li>
<li>About 100% coverage OVF</li>
<li>New Battery – LP-E6N</li>
<li><strong>New Battery Grip BG-E16</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>I stress I am trying to confirm everything above, and once I do I will update the rating on these specifications. I am 90% confident these are accurate EOS 7D Mark II specifications.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Angmar (Aug 22, 2014)

Works fine for me.


----------



## hediz (Aug 22, 2014)

Oh no, where are the huge number of DR stops...I must switch to something else

* IRONY *


----------



## han_solo82 (Aug 22, 2014)

Looks great!

“Fine Detail” CMOS Sensor : this sounds like no/weak AA filter to me!


----------



## jrista (Aug 22, 2014)

Hmm, very interesting. The first thing that pops out at me is the 65 AF pints "All Cross Type". That is really impressive! I never expected that...I figured it would be closer to 41 AF points.

Bummed a bit about the mixed use of CF and SD. I really wish Canon would stop doing that...dual cards of different types are useless...I'd much rather have dual CF so I wouldn't experience any speed discrepancies. 

I'm not surprised by 10fps...it seemed a bit far fetched that the camera would get 12fps. Canon has to keep some things "premium", it makes sense to keep the fastest frame rates locked to the 1D line. I'm also not surprised about Dual DIGIC 6...although I had hoped for DIGIC 7 along wit a real high resolution, high DR sensor.

Regarding the sensor...very disappointing. Sounds like a re-purposed 70D sensor with a DPAF improvement. I was REALLY, REALLY hoping Canon would really show something impressive on the sensor front with the 7D II. If the camera really does hit the streets with a 20mp sensor, I fully expect it to have the same DR limitations as all of Canon's previous sensors. Extremely disappointing. :'( Guess we'll have to wait for the 5D IV to see if Canon can actually step up their sensor IQ game or not...which is just...so far down the road...Bleh.

Also worried about the "fine detail"...I really don't want them to start removing AA filters. That is just a dumb trend that photographers like simply because they do not understand the value of an AA filter, or the ease by which AA softening can be sharpened.


----------



## Act444 (Aug 22, 2014)

So how confident is CR that this new camera will be called "7D Mark II"?

Sounds like a good camera on paper - only interested in one thing though and that is high ISO performance.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 22, 2014)

ISO 16000? When have they ever limited out at a place between 1 full stop increments from 100?


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 22, 2014)

han_solo82 said:


> “Fine Detail” CMOS Sensor : this sounds like no/weak AA filter to me!



No AA filter = artifact city. I hope it has an effective AA filter.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 22, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> 65 AF points “All Cross-type”. Dual cross on the center point.



I'd like to know how many of those are f/8 AF points.


----------



## schmidtfilme (Aug 22, 2014)

Where is the Hybrid viewfinder ?


----------



## m (Aug 22, 2014)

Could somebody please explain to me what this is?

Lens electronic MF

Does this mean I can rotate a dial on the body to do manual focusing?
What would that be useful for?

Overall this seems less exciting than the previous rumors.


----------



## lorenbc (Aug 22, 2014)

A bit disappointed at lack of GPS, but 65 AF points might make up for that  I'm not sure what the sensor information means; like CR, I need more info.

If these are indeed the specs, I'd only be interested sub $2k; at the previously speculated 2199 it's a non-starter (for me) with no GPS.

Loren


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 22, 2014)

schmidtfilme said:


> Where is the Hybrid viewfinder ?



I'd also like to know if it has 1:1 crop mode in video (or, an even better implementation of that).


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 22, 2014)

m said:


> Could somebody please explain to me what this is?
> 
> Lens electronic MF
> 
> ...



Wasn't reality always going to less fantastical than fantasy?


----------



## nostrovia (Aug 22, 2014)

m said:


> Could somebody please explain to me what this is?
> 
> Lens electronic MF
> 
> ...



I interpreted it as automatic micro focus adjustment, but I could be way off.


----------



## Ruined (Aug 22, 2014)

m said:


> Could somebody please explain to me what this is?
> 
> Lens electronic MF



Obviously no guarantee but it is a possibility it could be this:
*A patent has been published outlining automatic microadjustment for Canon DSLRs and lenses. 
*
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19032.0

Electronic manual focus would be mostly pointless as you alluded to. But, if this patent were to come to life in the camera it would be a boon to phase autofocus accuracy.


----------



## RGF (Aug 22, 2014)

Details about the sensor are lacking. Great marketing buzz terms but does the sensor have significantly better DR (vs 70D and 5DM3).

Also a bit surprised about the dual CF/SD card slots. Perhaps this is up the write speed?


----------



## jrista (Aug 22, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > 65 AF points “All Cross-type”. Dual cross on the center point.
> ...



Me too!


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 22, 2014)

Very impressive. Sounds like an outdoor sports camera 8)

•Dual Pixel CMOS AF
•Dual DIGIC 6 Processors
•65 AF points “All Cross-type”. Dual cross on the center point.
•10fps


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 22, 2014)

70D sensor without AA fiter and improved dualpixel technology?

i am not interested in aps-c cameras and the 7D II is not on my buying list anyway.
i was only interested in it because of what canon will do sensorwise in the future.

seems like the 7D II will be a dissapointment for me in this regards.







of course there is still hope the new sensor will blow me away and it´s not just a pimped 70D sensor.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 22, 2014)

Do you suppose a 15-85 STM would be a drive motor only update or an optical update as well? I've been very pleased with the optics of my 15-85.


----------



## whothafunk (Aug 22, 2014)

*still a rumor, people. don't take it as if Canon itself listed these specs. *

however, i would never pay more than $2000 for this.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 22, 2014)

Specs looks fine except the sensor...which should be the crown jewel. I agree if it comes out with the same senor effectively as the 70D that is going to be a real buzzkill. That said, I'm doing my best to reserve my reactions until I see an actual rig or at least an official Canon release on specs. Too many red-herrings and unknown variables right now.


----------



## bseitz234 (Aug 22, 2014)

Sounds like it could be good... I'm in the "hedged optimism" camp. I'll probably buy it, but probably not till the post-Christmas refurb sales. 10FPS and 65pt AF are enough to keep my interest, and the 70D sensor is good enough for me at this point, so I'm not immediately turned off. Hoping for more... guess that remains to be seen! 

(And if we can get more details about that sensor, that would be great!)


----------



## cnardo (Aug 22, 2014)

Looking very good to me... been saving my gift cards for the past 18 months ;D


----------



## gjones5252 (Aug 22, 2014)

Really not that impressed. I am tired of these smaller resolutions. I would like to see something that's truly a game changer. Basically this is a field ready 70d that more toned on the focus and fps side. Ugh. If these are true this probably won't be in my future. For what I do a 70d is the same thing.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 22, 2014)

And yes, electronic Micro Focus Adjustment would be something pretty stellar.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Aug 22, 2014)

sound like a good one...

Dual DIGIC 6 Processors
65 AF points “All Cross-type”. Dual cross on the center point.
10fps
ISO 100-16000, ISO Boost mode 25600 and 51200
Built-in flash with radio trigger function.

Anti-flicker mode, eliminates flickers under flickering lights (e.g. fluorescent lamps). <-- this one sounds very interesting, and please clarify whether or not this effect will works in RAW also, or just JPEG...


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 22, 2014)

ishdakuteb said:


> Anti-flicker mode, eliminates flickers under flickering lights (e.g. fluorescent lamps). <-- this one sounds very interesting, and please clarity this effect only works in RAW also, or just JPEG...



well i say it works with video... :


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2014)

Hmm is a fine detail sensor just the same as the 70D bit without AA filter???

Hmm no 4k....

I guess the talk about how the main IQ improvements and 4k may be held for the 5D4, maybe those were the earlier rumors that were the true ones?

It certainly sounds good and yet if it doesn't do more than just give a 70D sensor without AA (and maybe it does do more) and no 4k it seems like it's something they could've produced as is some time ago already.


----------



## justawriter (Aug 22, 2014)

Sounds OK, but not enough to tempt me to upgrade early. Hopefully by the time I want to replace my 7D in early 2016 there will be some killer sales prices and packages available.


----------



## stondawg (Aug 22, 2014)

I was told yesterday it will have dual DIGIC 7 processors. Just sayin...


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 22, 2014)

stondawg said:


> I was told yesterday it will have dual DIGIC 7 processors. Just sayin...



and you are a very reliable source.... :


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> Regarding the sensor...very disappointing. Sounds like a re-purposed 70D sensor with a DPAF improvement. I was REALLY, REALLY hoping Canon would really show something impressive on the sensor front with the 7D II. If the camera really does hit the streets with a 20mp sensor, I fully expect it to have the same DR limitations as all of Canon's previous sensors. Extremely disappointing. :'( Guess we'll have to wait for the 5D IV to see if Canon can actually step up their sensor IQ game or not...which is just...so far down the road...Bleh.
> 
> Also worried about the "fine detail"...I really don't want them to start removing AA filters. That is just a dumb trend that photographers like simply because they do not understand the value of an AA filter, or the ease by which AA softening can be sharpened.



+1

it sorta almost leads one to believe that Japanese Canon Fangirls post here where they were claiming that Canon feels they have Canon users trapped enough that it won't matter if the bodies they push out can't keep up as per sensors and even other features at times (still not a hint that they are actually moving any DSLR sensors to new fabs and the panny gets 4k and yet the super new 7D2 which was promised to have revolutionary video and this and that is still 1080p)

and yeah the AA filter-less stuff I am not a big fan of, maybe when we get to 180MP FF or 60MP APS-C or something.


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 22, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It certainly sounds good and yet if it doesn't do more than just give a 70D sensor without AA (and maybe it does do more) and no 4k it seems like it's something they *could've produced as is some time ago already*.



my first thoughts exactly.

where are the video features that are hyped for years?

does the 20.2 MP 70D sensor replaces the 18MP sensor now for the next 5 years?

it´s seems a bit unfair to judge it before we have seen it but hey this is a rumor site.. so we talk about the rumors. that´s all the fun right?


----------



## stondawg (Aug 22, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> and you are a very reliable source.... :



As far as you know


----------



## xps (Aug 22, 2014)

No new sensor? 20.2 MP looks like an "Well known" one... DR & IQ better? Or just electronically "optimized"?
Just an new AF system...

Ok, lets have a look @ IQ when it has been released on real world samples...

Price???


----------



## zim (Aug 22, 2014)

70D native top iso 12800
7D - 16000

If correct doesn't sound like 'just' a 70D with AA removed to me??


----------



## jrista (Aug 22, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding the sensor...very disappointing. Sounds like a re-purposed 70D sensor with a DPAF improvement. I was REALLY, REALLY hoping Canon would really show something impressive on the sensor front with the 7D II. If the camera really does hit the streets with a 20mp sensor, I fully expect it to have the same DR limitations as all of Canon's previous sensors. Extremely disappointing. :'( Guess we'll have to wait for the 5D IV to see if Canon can actually step up their sensor IQ game or not...which is just...so far down the road...Bleh.
> ...



Yeah, we really need sensors to significantly oversample the lens before we can legitimately start dropping AA filters. Otherwise we just end up WITH aliasing, and that's never good. 

I was not really interested in the 7D II being a big video DSLR anyway...I don't really know that anyone truly was, you just don't get that cinematic look with a smaller sensor...not without having very wide apertures anyway (like a lot of expensive cinema lenses do).

The thing that I think Canon really needed to nail, and which increasingly appears as they will not, is producing a truly new sensor with a fundamentally new design on a smaller fabrication process size. It just isn't happening. If this thing is still a 500nm transistor part...I mean...WOW. That technology is about fifteen years old!! What is Canon doing? It's one thing to be conservative, but now it's just getting ludicrous...


----------



## KacperP (Aug 22, 2014)

"Fine detail"... Maybe it's 80 (or much more) mpix chip, with each pixel read from 4 pixels on chip? No need for AA then.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 22, 2014)

zim said:


> 70D native top iso 12800
> 7D - 16000
> 
> If correct doesn't sound like 'just' a 70D with AA removed to me??



That's only a third of a stop.


----------



## timarrick (Aug 22, 2014)

Couple of things. 

1. Build quality was not mentioned. Only stated that it didn't have the 1D style top plate. 

2. "Fine Detal" CMOS is being read as removing the AA filter. The bit above the specs state that the sensor does have new technology. Removing an AA filter is NOT new tech.

3. Confused personally by the ISO 16,000 upper limits which is 1 1/3 stops. Odd but I guess not unbelievable.

4. Spot metering is 1.8% To me that does help the sports segment some on a dark field.

5. Dual Digic 6 . . . . . . . makes me think/hope their may be a bit more magic cooked into the sensor than a mild 70D upgrade


----------



## jrista (Aug 22, 2014)

zim said:


> 70D native top iso 12800
> 7D - 16000
> 
> If correct doesn't sound like 'just' a 70D with AA removed to me??



There really isn't anything special about moving up to 16000 "native", especially if it's the same sensor as the 70D. It won't be any better than a digital push...its going to be using the downstream analog amp anyway for that, which is really no better.

If Canon doubled Q.E., then high ISO would be better for sure...but I would be surprised if Q.E. on this thing is over 50%.


----------



## l_d_allan (Aug 22, 2014)

Yawn. Looks like an upgrade to the 70d.


----------



## bseitz234 (Aug 22, 2014)

jrista said:


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



I have always wondered about this, and you may be the guy to answer. Intel's next series of chips is what, 14nm process? I understand that Intel is purely in the microprocessor business, and Canon has to do a lot more than just optimize processes for sensors, but is there any practical reason why sensor transistors are / should be / need to be on such a different scale? Or is it just a matter of business and not wanting to make the necessary investment to keep shrinking? The fact that intel shrinks every other year has just made me wonder... because clearly there's an advantage to a smaller process.


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 22, 2014)

KacperP said:


> "Fine detail"... Maybe it's 80 (or much more) mpix chip, with each pixel read from 4 pixels on chip? No need for AA then.



that is a nice idea but i doubt it.

im still wondering what the big suprise is we see from canon... you know the rumor sites talk about for years.


----------



## jrista (Aug 22, 2014)

timarrick said:


> Couple of things.
> 
> 1. Build quality was not mentioned. Only stated that it didn't have the 1D style top plate.
> 
> ...



Actually, the use of Dual DIGIC 6 makes me really think that there is NO more magic cooked into the sensor, and that all the "magic" is happening after the signal is pulled OFF the sensor. It's probably roughly the same sensor that employs a slightly new DPAF design, and probably has a very weak or no AA filter, but is otherwise unchanged from the 70D. DIGIC 6, which actually came out before Sony BionzX, actually has a LOT of the same capabilities, and is the primary reason the IQ on their smaller form factor cameras is good. They really cook the signal coming off the sensor.


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> If Canon doubled Q.E., then high ISO would be better for sure...but I would be surprised if Q.E. on this thing is over 50%.



sensors reach 90% QE... i would be suprised when the 70D does not.

forget it i had the wrong numbers in mind.... it was not for the full spectrum but some wavelength. the ruby image sensors offer 80-90% QE.


----------



## Vossie (Aug 22, 2014)

Let's see what the final specs AND the final performance (noise, DR) will be. 

I had expected a big higher MP count (around 24) and had hoped for a bit higher ISO range. Butbstill, 10 fps with 61 AF poits can be a very good camera for birding, if noise is improved over the 7D1 and if the price is right (around 6D price).


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> Actually, the use of Dual DIGIC 6 makes me really think that there is NO more magic cooked into the sensor, and that all the "magic" is happening after the signal is pulled OFF the sensor. It's probably roughly the same sensor that employs a slightly new DPAF design, and probably has a very weak or no AA filter, but is otherwise unchanged from the 70D. DIGIC 6, which actually came out before Sony BionzX, actually has a LOT of the same capabilities, and is the primary reason the IQ on their smaller form factor cameras is good. They really cook the signal coming off the sensor.



Since DIGIC 6 supposedly allows frame rates to 14fps and 60fps video, why would they need two of them? Dual pixel works okay on the 70D with just one DIGIC 5+.


----------



## jrista (Aug 22, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon doubled Q.E., then high ISO would be better for sure...but I would be surprised if Q.E. on this thing is over 50%.
> ...



LOL. Extremely high grade sensors that cost a TON of money reach 90% Q.E. The DSLR camera with the highest Q.E. on the market right now has 60% Q.E. The 70D has 45% Q.E. There is absolutely NO WAY that Canon sensors will suddenly hit 90% Q.E. You have to spend at least $5000 on a thermally regulated CCD camera to get over 90% Q.E., and then, it IS a CCD, and those sensors are usually non-anti-blooming CCDs (so charge from each pixel spills over into neighboring pixels when they reach their capacity). 

Getting that much quantum efficiency is not easy. It requires very high grade materials and careful construction. Canon has apparently not changed their manufacturing process, so seeing a 5% increase in Q.E. over the 70D sensor in the 7D II would be about as much as I could expect.


----------



## jrista (Aug 22, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, the use of Dual DIGIC 6 makes me really think that there is NO more magic cooked into the sensor, and that all the "magic" is happening after the signal is pulled OFF the sensor. It's probably roughly the same sensor that employs a slightly new DPAF design, and probably has a very weak or no AA filter, but is otherwise unchanged from the 70D. DIGIC 6, which actually came out before Sony BionzX, actually has a LOT of the same capabilities, and is the primary reason the IQ on their smaller form factor cameras is good. They really cook the signal coming off the sensor.
> ...



From what I've read about DIGIC 6, a lot of the processing power is dedicated to image processing, not just your basic readout and write to RAW. I would be willing to bet that any IQ improvement in the 7D II comes from the pair of DIGIC 6 chips. As for frame rate, as I mentioned in my original post, Canon probably wants to reserve frame rates greater than 10fps for their premium 1D line, which is understandable IMO.


----------



## Twostones (Aug 22, 2014)

These specs look good to me for several reasons. By omitting GPS, Wi-Fi and the touch screen, I may be able to afford to buy one. I hope it is weather sealed with a rubber ring at the lens mounting plate and can be bought in “Canon White” to avoid over heating in the sun. That would make it a great camera for those who do shooting at sports events and outdoors.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2014)

Hmm is a fine detail sensor just the same as the 70D bit without AA filter??? To be honest, that would make the sensor WORSE than the 70D sensor in my mind. I just don't think the densities are high enough yet to simply drop the AA filters. That is way place where I think Nikon and SONY are going off the rails a little and it would be a shame to see Canon fall into that marketing nonsense trap. So Canon goes for the AA-less trend but doesn't bother about the super great low ISO DR trend??? Seems like the worst of two world's decisions. (if all true)

Hmm no 4k....

I guess the talk about how the main IQ improvements and 4k may be held for the 5D4 and the 7D would all be about new stills AF and video AF were the true early rumors? 

It certainly sounds good and yet if it doesn't do more than just give a 70D sensor without AA (and maybe it does do more) and no 4k it seems like it's something they could've produced, as is, some time ago already (other than perhaps for some super souped up dual pixel AF 2). 

Personally I'd way rather be shooting 4k video with old or even no dual pixel AF than 1080p with souped up dual pixel AF.

I think Canon thinks like this: super fast video AF and tracking is MUCH less expensive to produce than fancy new sensor fabs to match Exmor sensors for low ISO quality and it's maybe easier to make a big marketing pitch over to the avg guy on the street and since we have all users locked in with lenses, will just do this and forget about matching exmor. (cryptic message from JapaneseCanonFangirlsGroup appeared to claim that Canon's internal thinking is that they have users so locked in with lenses that they will be OK even though they are going to fall behind compared to other makers for raw stills low iso image quality and even, at the lower end for this round, 4k video and that they have users trapped enough that they don't have to spend for new fabs and push 4k into lower tiers yet)

Granted the 5D series was always canon's main lower tier video push, but I mean competition is out there, GH4.... yeah GH4 is not the camera this is for other things, but leaving out 4k all the same you'd think has to lose some sales to those more in it for video and not at 5D series level. But whatever.

I'm sure this will have amazing AF and handle sports and wildlife super well so it will likely be very good in many ways, but there are some disturbing potential hints that Canon really has not gotten any sort of exmor-matching plans on the line any time soon and that it will all be about cheaper to produce mass marketing things like bragging on no AA filters and having ultra fast video AF for the next round or two of bodies and that they may well see to cripple video on the 5D4. If this got 1080p instead of 4k that means the 5D4 can get 4k but likely a crippled up versions and still no solid built in features like focusing peaking, magic 100% focus boxes, zebras, etc. etc. and they might leave out 1080p RAW and maybe produce a blurry, waxy 4k and leave the real stuff to the 1DX2 or C-line....


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> From what I've read about DIGIC 6, a lot of the processing power is dedicated to image processing, not just your basic readout and write to RAW. I would be willing to bet that any IQ improvement in the 7D II comes from the pair of DIGIC 6 chips. As for frame rate, as I mentioned in my original post, Canon probably wants to reserve frame rates greater than 10fps for their premium 1D line, which is understandable IMO.



Still it seems like a single DIGIC 6 would do the job for the specs we've been given. Maybe the second one is for faster focusing, faster dual-pixel focusing, or something we haven't been told like dual ISO sampling.

Or, maybe the rumor is wrong.


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> Lightmaster said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



the latest sony sensor has a reported QE of 67%.

http://www.sensorgen.info/

i have edited my post while you were writing. i mixed this up with the ruby sensors we use. they are CMOS not CCD. i kind of had that impressive number in mind.


----------



## zim (Aug 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > 70D native top iso 12800
> ...




mmmm I thought that native meant before digital push hay ho my misunderstand.
To be honest this is still much closer to what I was expecting - 7D build/ergo, 70D sensor and a couple of genuinely impressive head-liner specs (fps/af), price probably just north of the original 7D price I'd imagine.
Still a heck of a camera


----------



## zim (Aug 22, 2014)

............. Or maybe this is all just a double bluff from Canon ;D ;D ;D


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 22, 2014)

bseitz234 said:


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



cost.
no one creates large sensors using the latest technology - the A7R / D810E sensor for instance is on 180nm. which is speculated to the be the same as the 70D sensor. D700, D4, etc were even on larger than that (350nm to 250nm)

the toshiba sensor uses 65nm and sony was looking at and just starting to use 90nm for it's APS-C sensors, but unless you're talking the smart phone / compact sensors - there's just no benefit to the smaller geometries over the cost of production with the pixel granularity where it is.

canon's current line of lithography systems can produce chips under 90nm - far exceeding even really what is required by sensors - so it's not as if canon can't if they feel they have to. also to add to that, canon now has the equipment to product down to under 10nm geometries.

To be honest, people are humping on this as the core reason - not really. and most of them don't have a freaking clue, but all of a sudden turn into electronic and chip designers (not to mention camera designers too). canon certainly has a problem "downlevel" from the pixel - but their QE from their current 70D isn't that much off than the D5100's QE and even cutting the pixels in half they improved the QE by 10% over the 7D sensor level spec.

some notables that I'm concerned more about is the lack of 4K on this, and some more information on the viewfinder. also would love to know if uses the EVF addon via the hotshoe. the augmentation of built in radio trigger is awesome though.

the specs are too lose and too premature to jump off the cliff like a few are doing.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 22, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Lightmaster said:
> ...



that's an A7S - not an APS-C .. the best APS-C sensor rolls in at 55%.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> Also worried about the "fine detail"...I really don't want them to start removing AA filters. That is just a dumb trend that photographers like simply because they do not understand the value of an AA filter, or the ease by which AA softening can be sharpened.



Any soft image can be sharpened. But the images that are sharpest in RAW without sharpening are going to take post processing much better.

I'm actually kind of shocked to see someone on a camera forum advocating soft images. 

The 7D was the softest Canon DSLR I've owned (and I've owned a bunch). So any move away from that buttery, waxy look is progress.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > From what I've read about DIGIC 6, a lot of the processing power is dedicated to image processing, not just your basic readout and write to RAW. I would be willing to bet that any IQ improvement in the 7D II comes from the pair of DIGIC 6 chips. As for frame rate, as I mentioned in my original post, Canon probably wants to reserve frame rates greater than 10fps for their premium 1D line, which is understandable IMO.
> ...



maybe with two digic 6 it has the power to handle reading the entire sensor for video and produce video without aliasing and mush?


----------



## Yosemite (Aug 22, 2014)

If there will be no GPS - I'll keep my money in my pocket and have to shoot longer with my old 400D :'( I'm now for two years waiting to spend my money on a crop camera from Canon with GPS and a good screen... But if that should be true - I have to wait once again two years


----------



## jrista (Aug 22, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> bseitz234 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Your partly right, but your largely missing the point. A 500nm transistor is actually HUGE by todays standards. Think about it, that is half a micron. For a pixel that is surrounded by half-micron transistors, that is a FULL micron off all side of the pixel. A 4µm pixel is then only capable of, at most, a 3µm photodiode. The full size of the pixel itself is 1.78x larger in area than the photodiode. However, if you move to a 180nm process, your losing less than half a micron in total. That means the photodiode can be 3.6µm in size. The pixel is only 1.2x larger in area than the photodiode. Your photodiode area has increased by a factor of 1.5x, which reduces noise by 1.2x. That is significant. It's a stop gained in noise performance. 

However, the REAL point about moving to a smaller transistor size is the ability to put more logic on the sensor die. At 500nm, Canon would have to make the sensor die itself quite a lot larger in order to move all the ADC logic onto the sensor itself, and make it column-parallel. At 180nm or better 90nm, they could move the ADCs on-die and need less than half, maybe less than one quarter, of the die space that would be necessary to do that with a 500nm process. Yield would remain high, so the cost of moving ADC onto the sensor would be much lower in the long run. THAT is the real point of moving to a smaller process. To allow more logic to be placed on the sensor die itself. The biggest gain there would be allowing full blown, high performance CP-ADC (and, maybe, also employ some of the other patents Canon has, such as dual scale ADC, power decoupling, etc.) 

There is also a significantly greater per-pixel transistor requirement for stacked pixel designs. Canon recently released a patent for a five-layer sensor design. I honestly don't know how they would pull that off with a 500nm process. Not without a very low fill factor which would push noise levels sky high. However, with a 90nm fabrication process, creating a five layer sensor would be much, much easier, without running into serious problems with noise.


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 22, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> Lightmaster said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



i know.... but what has QE to do with sensor size when the G10 has a reported QE of 57% ?

http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonPowershot_G10.html 

or the G15 with QE 59%


----------



## bchernicoff (Aug 22, 2014)

DPAF in the 70D has two photosites for each pixel. I'm really surprised that no one has suggested that "fine detail" is a selectable mode that reads each photosite separately to produce a 40mp image.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 22, 2014)

I keep going back to the question of price in relationship to upgrade. 70D streets around $1100. Would 3 more FPS and 61pt AF really justify another $1000 or more? If the sensor is the same with a slightly upgraded DPAF system, I'm not so sure. 

On the flip side, if it comes out closer to the 70D in price (say $1700) maybe it works. I dunno. Not enough info yet even with what we have. In the previous chain about the 7DX specs better DR, IQ, and less noise are the overwhelming drivers for interest here. 

I think if it falls short on 2 outta those 3 then they have missed the mark badly. But I'm not convinced Canon could make such a miscalculation.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Also worried about the "fine detail"...I really don't want them to start removing AA filters. That is just a dumb trend that photographers like simply because they do not understand the value of an AA filter, or the ease by which AA softening can be sharpened.
> ...



I'm not. He is advocating against messed up aliased images, not for soft images.

I hope Canon just get suckered into the Nikon/SONY fake hype over AA-less sensors.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 22, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Also worried about the "fine detail"...I really don't want them to start removing AA filters. That is just a dumb trend that photographers like simply because they do not understand the value of an AA filter, or the ease by which AA softening can be sharpened.
> ...



Do you think camera makers put in those horribly expensive AA filters because they want to increase their expenses and reduce image quality? They're there for a reason - to reduce aliasing, which is a totally impossible to remove artifact once it has been sampled into the raw data.


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 22, 2014)

bchernicoff said:


> DPAF in the 70D has two photosites for each pixel. I'm really surprised that no one has suggested that "fine detail" is a selectable mode that reads each photosite separately to produce a 40mp image.



someone kind of has.... just the other way around. to eliminate the AA filter.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 22, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> I keep going back to the question of price in relationship to upgrade. 70D streets around $1100. Would 3 more FPS and 61pt AF really justify another $1000 or more?



Nope.


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 22, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



i have to say the 810 images look not bad.
im not a nikon expert but i read the camera has no AA filter.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 22, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Do you think camera makers put in those horribly expensive AA filters because they want to increase their expenses and reduce image quality? They're there for a reason - to reduce aliasing, which is a totally impossible to remove artifact once it has been sampled into the raw data.




It's about finding a balance between preventing aliasing and preserving fine detail. The 7D I owned for years delivered waxy images. My 70D is a significant upgrade in this regard.

This "fine detail" sensor looks like an acknowledgement of the mushy 7D files. That's good news.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 22, 2014)

zim said:


> To be honest this is still much closer to what I was expecting - 7D build/ergo, 70D sensor and a couple of genuinely impressive head-liner specs (fps/af), price probably just north of the original 7D price I'd imagine.
> Still a heck of a camera



Agreed. 

It's time for the real to replace the fantasy and of course that means much whining on this forum about how Canon is failing -- meanwhile it will be a big seller in the real world. 

My two cents: 
Agree with others that I hope there will be f8 autofocus;

I actually like the CF and SD card options. In my 5D I mostly use the CF slot, but I like having the SD as a backup and, honestly, when I'm traveling knowing that I can pick up an extra SD card almost anywhere is great for peace of mind. This is one of those features that forum participants may not like, but consumers do;

I'll still be surprised if there is no touch screen. Especially if they are introducing new STM lenses. The STM lenses would indicate video, but why optimize a camera for video and then not provide touch screen controls?

A little surprised at the sensor, I really thought Canon would go for 24 mp. Not a huge deal to me, just a bit of a surprise;

If Electronic MF really means micro-focus adjustment that would be huge. 

Overall impression: If correct, this seems to me that Canon is keeping the 7D II targeted to the same audience as the original 7D -- enthusiasts who want a feature-rich camera, rather than focusing on pixel-peepers and DR fanatics. 



PureClassA said:


> In the previous chain about the 7DX specs better DR, IQ, and less noise are the overwhelming drivers for interest here...But I'm not convinced Canon could make such a miscalculation.



No miscalculation. What people on gearhead forums want and what the bulk of customers who will actually buy the product want are two entirely different things.


----------



## kirispupis (Aug 22, 2014)

This is a tough one for me. I would really like something with more range. I currently shoot with a 5D3 and a 200-400/1.4x and picking up a 600/4 II is really not an option for me. The thing is my #1 priority is high ISO. I can trust my 5D3 to shoot at ISO 3200 with a decent amount of cropping available (keep in mind I do a lot of 30" x 20" prints) but I strongly prefer to shoot at ISO 1600.

Given the lighting conditions in the PNW anything with worse high ISO perf than the 5D3 would probably be a no go. From these specs it looks like the 7D2 is one stop worse than the 5D3, so I would probably pass unless Canon has something new up their sleeves.

Overall if these are the specs, then it is looking like another big disappointment. I was really hoping that Canon would step up in terms of sensors, but perhaps they are waiting for the 5D4 or 1DX2 for that.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 22, 2014)

bchernicoff said:


> DPAF in the 70D has two photosites for each pixel. I'm really surprised that no one has suggested that "fine detail" is a selectable mode that reads each photosite separately to produce a 40mp image.



If they're both under the same microlens (which is how DPAF works), you wouldn't get any more detail that way.


----------



## jrista (Aug 22, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Also worried about the "fine detail"...I really don't want them to start removing AA filters. That is just a dumb trend that photographers like simply because they do not understand the value of an AA filter, or the ease by which AA softening can be sharpened.
> ...



LOL, I'm not advocating soft images. People just plain and simply don't understand resolution. I want OVERSAMPLING, not soft images. An oversampled image is only a problem if you pixel peep. However, nicely oversampled image (say 2-3x the diffraction spot size) is never going to need any upsampling for printing large. You don't have "sharp" detail when upsampling ANYWAY, so I'd much rather start out with an image that has as much detail as possible, even if it looks "soft" at 100%...it's going to be less soft than a lower resolution image that's been upsampled to the same size.

Going in the other direction, you can always downsample an oversampled image and gain sharpness. An image oversampled 2x relative to an image that was not oversampled at all (1x) will look better when downsampled to 1/4 it's original size to match the 1x image. Additionally, the oversampled image won't have any aliasing of any kind whatsoever, where as the image sampled at 1x WILL most definitely have aliasing and possibly moire. 

Removal of an AA filter also means that signal frequencies that match the sensor frequency, and those just above and just below, the frequencies that get aliased most, just end up becoming noise. But it's a harsh, sharp noise, so it's very obvious. 

There are no real benefits to removal of AA filters. With the right kind of scene, say a landscape packed with non-patterned information, MIGHT benefit from it. However there are plenty of very undesirable things that absolutely do occur with the removal of AA filters...proven things, most of which have no real solution for correcting in post. I'm advocating against Canon following the uneducated trend of niche companies like Nikon and photographers who don't know what they are talking about, and forcing the introduction of a crap ton of artifacts and aliasing into our images that were perfectly fine before.


----------



## jrista (Aug 22, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > DPAF in the 70D has two photosites for each pixel. I'm really surprised that no one has suggested that "fine detail" is a selectable mode that reads each photosite separately to produce a 40mp image.
> ...



Totally agree. There is no benefit to splitting the photodiode underneath the same microlens and color filter.


----------



## jrista (Aug 22, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> i know.... but what has QE to do with sensor size when the G10 has a reported QE of 57% ?
> 
> http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonPowershot_G10.html
> 
> or the G15 with QE 59%



It doesn't have anything to do with sensor size. Canon's smaller sensors are manufactured on their newer fabs, which do use a 180nm process and apparently better materials. It's the larger sensors that are still manufactured at their older fabs.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 22, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> From these specs it looks like the 7D2 is one stop worse than the 5D3...



At the same framing (when you are focal length limited and cropping anyway), this sensor is likely better than the 5D3.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Aug 22, 2014)

So, same sensor as the 70D? If true, no shocker there.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > bchernicoff said:
> ...



Well, except fot the phase information, which is the whole point of them doing it.


----------



## jrista (Aug 22, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


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



Right. However from what I understand about Canon's DPAF design, the photodiodes MUST be under the microlens for it to work properly.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> LOL, I'm not advocating soft images.




It sure sounded like it.  You blamed waxy AA filters on end users, and then brushed the waxy filters off by saying you can sharpen soft images.


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> Lightmaster said:
> 
> 
> > i know.... but what has QE to do with sensor size when the G10 has a reported QE of 57% ?
> ...



it was a rhetoric question.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 22, 2014)

I'd say my 70D is about two stops away from my 6D. I would never use the 70D over the 6D for wildlife in lowlight situations.


----------



## jrista (Aug 22, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, I'm not advocating soft images.
> ...



What in the world are you talking about?


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



another thing people forget is that "per pixel sharpeness" does not equal "more details".


----------



## jrista (Aug 22, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelHodges said:
> ...



True. I'd strongly argue that you get much more detail with an image oversampled 2-3x, than with an image that does not have an AA filter. I'd argue that you can get within 98-99% of the detail of an image that was taken without an AA filter by sharpening an image that did have an AA filter. I'd argue that you can get 99-100% of the real detail of an image taken without an AA filter by using proper deconvolution algorithms with an image that DID have an AA filter. 

The convolution caused by an AA filter is highly predictable and uniform across the frame, so it's easily correctable. Aliasing, moire, and other artifacts that occur due to the LACK of an AA filter are near impossible or literally impossible to correct in post, even with the most advanced tools on the market today.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...





> Also worried about the "fine detail"...I really don't want them to start removing AA filters. That is just *a dumb trend that photographers like **simply because they do not understand the value of an AA filter, or the ease by which AA softening can be sharpened*.


----------



## roxics (Aug 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> I was not really interested in the 7D II being a big video DSLR anyway...I don't really know that anyone truly was, you just don't get that cinematic look with a smaller sensor...not without having very wide apertures anyway (like a lot of expensive cinema lenses do).



You're kidding right? Do you know how much hype there was in the video world over the original 7D? It was huge! The APS-C sensor is nearly super35mm in size, the same size as motion picture 35mm film. It matches cinema lenses well, unlike full frame cameras.

There isn't a ton of hype about the 7DmkII in the video world, only because most people have given up on Canon outside of Magic Lantern hacks. But the hope is still that Canon will release the 7DmkII to match or at least come cose to the GH4 in video specs.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 22, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> In the previous chain about the 7DX specs better DR, IQ, and less noise are the overwhelming drivers for interest here...But I'm not convinced Canon could make such a miscalculation.



No miscalculation. What people on gearhead forums want and what the bulk of customers who will actually buy the product want are two entirely different things.
[/quote]

Like I said, I do NOT think they would miscalculate. The 7D line isn't meant for feature-only freak low end consumers. It was always geared at upper tier users. My point is that I think the end result will be (hopefully) something notably improved.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelHodges said:
> ...



not that bad, but you can definitely see harsh looking jaggies and such at times all the same which I'd wish were not there. overall it's such a great sensor I'd still take it, for stills, any day over what hte 5D3 delivers, but all the same I'd way take an 810a WITH AA filter over an 810 sensor.


----------



## preppyak (Aug 22, 2014)

roxics said:


> There isn't a ton of hype about the 7DmkII in the video world, only because most people have given up on Canon outside of Magic Lantern hacks. But the hope is still that Canon will release the 7DmkII to match or at least come cose to the GH4 in video specs.


Yep, honest truth is that Canon has lost the low-budget indie video world a good 2+ years ago. Panasonic, BlackMagic, etc took it over, and I dont think Canon can realistically get it back. 1080/60 is something cameras had years ago, and unless the DPAF turns it into camcorder level AF, it wont win a lot of people.

Its funny, I remember the rumor coming out 2-3 years ago that "Canon thinks everything will be video in the future", thus their cine line, etc. Seems to me they just realized there is a ton of money to be made in the rental market, especially in the TV industry, and that money can't be made off the people that want a 5dIII with 4k for $1k.


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> The convolution caused by an AA filter is highly predictable and uniform across the frame, so it's easily correctable. Aliasing, moire, and other artifacts that occur due to the LACK of an AA filter are near impossible or literally impossible to correct in post, even with the most advanced tools on the market today.



i see it from a CGI viewpoint. im doing 3D stuff for 20 years (90% of my work is stills).

for years i had to bother about what AA filter i have to use or is best for a scene.
with faster CPUs and VRAY i started to do oversampling and turned off the special AA filters (lanczos / catmull etc).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think camera makers put in those horribly expensive AA filters because they want to increase their expenses and reduce image quality? They're there for a reason - to reduce aliasing, which is a totally impossible to remove artifact once it has been sampled into the raw data.
> ...



Some of the 7D mush was from using a heavily split-green CFA filter which required extra special de-Bayer processing that added just a trace of loss of micro-contrast


----------



## jrista (Aug 22, 2014)

roxics said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I was not really interested in the 7D II being a big video DSLR anyway...I don't really know that anyone truly was, you just don't get that cinematic look with a smaller sensor...not without having very wide apertures anyway (like a lot of expensive cinema lenses do).
> ...



You misunderstood my point. Cinema LENSES usually have wide apertures. They are rated in T-stops, which is often wider than f/2.8. Most Canon DSLR lenses, unless your spending thousands of dollars, don't come remotely close to the quality of a cinema lens, and don't have the nice wide max apertures. So with a 7D II and "almost super 35mm size" sensor, your still not going to get that cinematic look. You certainly won't come anywhere close to the kind of beautiful cinematic quality and boke that you can get from any video-capable FF DSLR.

From what you've said, people in the video community were looking to the 7D II for the same reasons still photographers were looking to it...just to see what Canon would do, not because it would necessarily offer the right kind of IQ for their needs. It's a milestone marker for Canon...did they move 500 miles down the road yet, or did they only move five miles? 

From the looks of it, on both fronts, video and still, Canon hasn't moved much more than five miles down the road...and they are still puttering along.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think camera makers put in those horribly expensive AA filters because they want to increase their expenses and reduce image quality? They're there for a reason - to reduce aliasing, which is a totally impossible to remove artifact once it has been sampled into the raw data.
> ...



Some of the 7D mush was from using a heavily split-green CFA filter which required extra special de-Bayer processing that added just a trace of loss of micro-contrast


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2014)

It seems like Canon marketing at work again when it comes to 4k. The 1DC can do a full read and extract and process 4k out of 18MP using dual digic 5 so why could the 7D2 not handle a 4k read out of a 20MP sensor with dual digic 6? Now they are locked into their top sports/wildlife mini-cam not being able to shoot wildlife video at 4k for another 3-6 years....


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 22, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It seems like Canon marketing at work again when it comes to 4k. The 1DC can do a full read and extract and process 4k out of 18MP using dual digic 5 so why could the 7D2 not handle a 4k read out of a 20MP sensor with dual digic 6? Now they are locked into their top sports/wildlife mini-cam not being able to shoot wildlife video at 4k for another 3-6 years....



i guess it´s just a matter of a firmware update after 2 years.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> I was not really interested in the 7D II being a big video DSLR anyway...I don't really know that anyone truly was, you just don't get that cinematic look with a smaller sensor...not without having very wide apertures anyway (like a lot of expensive cinema lenses do).



There is tons of fast glass for DSLRs and most 35mm films are shot on a surface that is actually NOT SLR FF size but pretty much APS-C size. FF is more like filming at 70mm in terms of how they talk about things. Movie guys ran the film through the camera sideways compared to how stills film cameras did keep in mind.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > From these specs it looks like the 7D2 is one stop worse than the 5D3...
> ...



maybe, is the 70D better per surface area? i don't recall it might be about the same and not better?


----------



## Joe M (Aug 22, 2014)

I used the 7D at one point and likely won't ever use a 7D2 but the possibility of built-in RT flash control makes me jealous. Other than that, there definitely are some quirky looking things on this list. "Fine detail" and iso 100-16000 are peculiar to say the least. In any case, it must be a tough job making a camera that won't impinge on the sales of other models while appealing to people at the same time.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> As for photographers, if you think the removal of an AA filter is better than oversampling, then yes, I absolutely DO BLAME YOU for forcing a ludicrous trend on camera manufacturers.



So rather than removing obstacles to improve detail and simplifying, you want to convolute the process?





> *Your an idiot* if you think a lower resolution sensor without an AA filter is ever, even remotely, going to be better than downsampling an oversampled image that doesn't NEED an AA filter (because by oversampling, you ARE anti-aliasing!)
> 
> As for sharpening soft images...are you refuting the claim that you can restore detail by sharpening? Seriously?! I've proven this case so many times before, do I really, truly, need to prove it again?



In my response, I claimed that soft images can be sharpened. But the problem with soft images is they are much less malleable than sharp, clean images out of camera.

The better the sensor, the less post processing you have to do.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 22, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...




Interesting! Thanks for the information.


----------



## Kerry B (Aug 22, 2014)

For me the so called specs of the new 7DMk11 are not ground breaking and are somewhat of a disappointment given the length of time Canon have had to develop this new camera. I was certainly hoping for an improvement in the Canon sensor technology, if the facts are correct we will not see this in this camera.

In essence are the rumours regarding specs for this camera any different to what the Canon 1Dmk1v has to offer, and this is a camera that is 4 years old.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 22, 2014)

Wow! A lot has been posted on this today. Must be a lazy Friday! 

IMHO, based on this latest _RUMOR_, I think I'll be pretty glad that I jumped on the 70D + Kit Lens refurb from Canon a few days ago for $836 + tax.

The 7D-II will no doubt be a great camera but I don't think I'll be inclined to spend the major $$ it will command. Like jrista, the sensor doesn't sound like a huge game changer anyway.


----------



## jrista (Aug 22, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > As for photographers, if you think the removal of an AA filter is better than oversampling, then yes, I absolutely DO BLAME YOU for forcing a ludicrous trend on camera manufacturers.
> ...



I'm not sure there is any actual evidence for that. And again, I'd point you to all the artifacts that occur with sensors that lack an AA filter entirely. You could spend DAYS trying to correct moire or extensive aliasing in an image, and still never get rid of it. As for a sensor with an AA filter...run it through a light sharpening filter and your done. Maybe that's 5 seconds of additional processing...ooh, that's just so much time. In the grand scheme of things, I'd say that you still have to spend time sharpening an image without an AA filter...you just use less sharpening. So there really isn't any major difference in processing time period. 

Now, regarding oversampling. You seem to be misunderstanding that. A sensor that oversamples lenses, at their best resolution, say f/2.8 as a round-about high quality aperture for lenses the likes of the Otus. You still wouldn't have an AA filter. However, you wouldn't NEED an AA filter, because your anti-aliasing by oversampling. You do understands what that means, right? A sensor that is capable of oversampling is going to be of MUCH higher resolution than any sensor that isn't oversampling and lacks and AA filter. 

So...where, exactly, is your lower resolution AA-less sensor actually getting higher IQ than a high resolution oversampled sensor? The higher resolution sensor, even it it may look "soft" at 100% pixel peeping, is STILL resolving FAR more detail than the lower resolution sensor that lacks an AA filter. You want a sharper image? Well, if your 2x oversampled, downsample by a factor of two (reduce it to 1/4 area). If your 3x oversampled, downsample by a factor of three (reduce it to 1/9th area.) The oversampled image will be sharper, out of camera, without any sharpening or noise reduction, than the lower resolution image that did not have an AA filter.

When it comes down to sensors at today's resolutions, I'll take the one with an AA filter over one without an AA filter any day. It might take me an extra five seconds to dial in a slightly stronger amount of sharpening than one without an AA filter, but at least I won't have to spend an extra day trying to get rid of aliasing and moire.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 22, 2014)

While the 7D II specs don't blow me away, the "fine detail sensor' is encouraging. At least Canon acknowledges they are behind in this area.

But the same conclusion from four years ago stands: If you want a lowlight camera, it's time to go FF.

The people who were expecting a FF-like sensor on APS-C are the ones who are going to be most disappointed.


----------



## Tugela (Aug 22, 2014)

No 4K video? I will skip this one then, since the camera does not satisfy my requirements. I need a camera for the future, not for the past. Time to look at Panasonic or Sony I guess


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> In my response, I claimed that soft images can be sharpened. But the problem with soft images is they are much less malleable than sharp, clean images out of camera.
> 
> The better the sensor, the less post processing you have to do.



But AA-less images are NOT sharp and clean and malleable. They have false detail and noise from false detail and you can't do much to them without hitting into an accentuating artifacts (not that you need to do much though at all, in fact without the AA filter, you really shouldn't do mcuh anything ot them at all).


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 22, 2014)

an image done via oversampling will have more details but may look soft at 1:1.

but it is produced from a source that has way higher resolution.
when you resample the images to a lower resolution you can gain sharpness.
you will lose some of the details (the "smaller" less MP image can hold less information). 
but with a lower resolution sensor you would not have these details anyway.

a physical AA filter, in simple words, just blurs the image a bit.

this can be countered by deconvolution methods.
but they are very processing intensive. but it´s done in astronomy all the time.





> But AA-less images are NOT sharp and clean and malleable. They have false detail and noise from false detail and you can't do much to them without hitting into an accentuating artifacts (not that you need to do much though at all, in fact without the AA filter, you really shouldn't do mcuh anything ot them at all).



well that depends on the motiv too.

you can have perfectly fine images without an AA filter.
but then you photograph, for example, fabrics etc. and it just looks ugly.

and i guess medium format user (like myself) who uses backs that have no AA filter would disagree too. 

a foveon sensor does not need an AA filter because it does not use a bayer pattern.

AA less sensors are in some of the best cameras, so this claim you make is a bit bold. 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_naked_sensor.shtml


----------



## SwampYankee (Aug 22, 2014)

5 years for a 2 megapixel bump??????     
Thanks for nothing Canon


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> While the 7D II specs don't blow me away, the "fine detail sensor' is encouraging. At least Canon acknowledges they are behind in this area.



Hah, that is the one area where IMO they have still be doing it right when it comes to sensors for stills.

So it would be a pretty shame if the one place they acknowledged they were 'behind' and tried to 'catch-up' was this while dropping the ball and falling even farther behind on DR and now 4k video (and 1080p RAW of ML).


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 22, 2014)

the 7D MK II will have continuous AF like camcorders. It's not necessarily required on their higher end cine slrs, and it's the reason the # AF points has increased. Does that not align with the new video features and is a result of the new sensor features. That would put it ahead of everything else?

It will appeal to sports / wildlife also, based on the specs.

I still recall a comment made by Thom Hogan and others. If you can't take a decent shot with the current cameras available from Canon and Nikon, then it's not the camera at fault. It seems that a lot of people are expecting huge changes for a camera with a designated target market that does not require those things.

It won't need huge DR, as has been discussed elsewhere. And even if the sensor does not improve order of magnitude, will it not still take good pictures and therefore sell? Why has the 7D sold so well, and what in the MK II will not re-enforce it?


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 22, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> NOT sharp and clean and malleable. They have false detail and noise from false detail and you can't do much to them without hitting into an accentuating artifacts (not that you need to do much though at all, in fact without the AA filter, you really shouldn't do mcuh anything ot them at all).



I've seen the results from the 800E, and they are stunning in terms of detail out-of-camera. For nature photography, you don't really need an AA filter.

I stick with Canon because I like Canon colors and the lens selection. But I have been tempted.

Nice article comparing the 800E and the 800:

http://www.mattk.com/2012/10/02/my-nikon-d800-vs-d800e-comparison/


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 22, 2014)

65 cross type AF points, center one being dual cross....
a pair of Digic 6 processors...
Lens Electronic MF (is this automatic AFMA?)

This beast has the potential for some pretty serious AF capability...

I still can't see having no touch screen or WiFi, but hey, it's all rumours. Don't believe a thing until it is officially released....


----------



## rs (Aug 22, 2014)

Stu_bert said:


> the 7D MK II will have continuous AF like camcorders. It's not necessarily required on their higher end cine slrs, and it's the reason the # AF points has increased. Does that not align with the new video features and is a result of the new sensor features. That would put it ahead of everything else?


The number of focus points refers to the amount found on the AF chip, which is completely bypassed when the mirror is up for videoing. That's where DPAF comes in, which has substantially more than 65 AF points - 20.2 million to be precise. There is no increase in numbers here over the 70D. Processing power is the big sticking point, and that's where the 7D mk II could gain.

65 AF points, all cross type, is a big gain for any situation where the mirror is down.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 22, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> 5 years for a 2 megapixel bump??????
> Thanks for nothing Canon



Sure but a 20MP vs a 24MP is 10% difference on X and Y axis approximately. Are Canon that much behind the competition? I appreciate it would be nice and in terms of those who want the bragging and don't realise then sure Canon are missing out.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 22, 2014)

rs said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > the 7D MK II will have continuous AF like camcorders. It's not necessarily required on their higher end cine slrs, and it's the reason the # AF points has increased. Does that not align with the new video features and is a result of the new sensor features. That would put it ahead of everything else?
> ...



Good point, well made 
Still think it will have continuous AF for video ;D


----------



## rs (Aug 22, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> Lens electronic MF


Is this some poorly translated way of saying lenses with electronic manual focus such as STM lenses and the 85L will have manual focus all the time, rather than just while the metering is on? While that would save a lot of annoyance, that could potentially waste a lot of battery power unless they find a way of waking up the system with any detected rotation of that focus ring.


----------



## MichaelTheMaven (Aug 22, 2014)

Focusing system sounds pretty sweet. 

Boggles the mind how Canon is ignoring the 4K and video features that Panasonic is winning droves of new customers with.


----------



## DominoDude (Aug 22, 2014)

To me this sounds interesting! (Yes, I'm that easily amused.)
Today I've been trying do a little nasty with one of the pro shops nearby. I asked the Nikon-dude about the 7DMkII, and since he didn't know, he asked the Canon-dude, who nearly slipped and gave me the answer I wanted. Too bad he noticed I was lurking nearby and wanted to overhear their internal conversation. 
Oh, well, I've got nada new about the Canon releases for now, but I got the chance to be one of the first handful of people, in this country, who have laid their hands on the Leica that will be announced at Photokina.

Late edit about the rumour: Ooops! I missed that they sneaked in that nasty little SD-slot in the rumour. That's an ugly part I hope is untrue.


----------



## King Eyre (Aug 22, 2014)

Please please please exposure compensation in manual with auto iso, massive help on the 1 Dx and my preferred setting now for 95% of shots......

George.


----------



## rs (Aug 22, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> I've seen the results from the 800E, and they are stunning in terms of detail out-of-camera. For nature photography, you don't really need an AA filter.


What's the point in a camera which can produce (in your eyes) better pictures in one particular scenario, while other scenarios are plagued by a design flaw?

Also, what about any nature shots with repeating patterns around the sampling frequency? Uniform vegetation such as some grasses or leaves, bird feathers, animal hair etc?

What you gain is false information. False sharpness. False detail.

Low pass filters are used in all forms of sampling to avoid aliasing. Aliasing is nothing but artefacts. If you can't excite aliasing due to oversampling, there is no gain to be made by avoiding a low pass filter.

Computers have for some time used anti aliasing to improve the percieved resolution of displays - this avoid the jagged edges, false details and create more realistic renderings.


----------



## bcflood (Aug 22, 2014)

For as long of a life-cycle the 7D replacement is likely to have, these specs seem rather tame. I'll reserve judgment until the official word is out (it's not like you can buy it yet anyway). For me, it looks like the 70D will pretty much accomplish 90-95% all I want to do compared to these posted specs. I was hoping for a push in MP and 4K video, but it isn't like Canon calls me personally for advice :


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 22, 2014)

rs said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen the results from the 800E, and they are stunning in terms of detail out-of-camera. For nature photography, you don't really need an AA filter.
> ...



again.... many medium format backs don´t use AA filters.

sure the higher pixel count your back has the less problems with moiré you will get.
but the low MP backs have no AA filter either.
the 22-25MP backs are really prone to moire.

that can be a problem.. but as you can see many very well paid pros use medium format cameras.... even for fashion shoots.  

for some motivs AA filters do no good but reduce resolution. 

some of you make it sound like an AA less sensor will ruin every picture.
if that would be the case i wonder why phase one and hasselblad spare the AA filter.

don´t measure everything by the same yardstick.

there are benefits, there are problems.

maybe canon could use a weaker AA filter?
wasn´t there some talk that the 5D MK3 AA filter is stronger than the 5D MK2 AA filter?

maybe they use a stronger filter because they think not everyone can/will deal with these issues in post?
while medium format users are believed to be more tech savvy when it comes to post processing.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 22, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > In the previous chain about the 7DX specs better DR, IQ, and less noise are the overwhelming drivers for interest here...But I'm not convinced Canon could make such a miscalculation.
> ...



Like I said, I do NOT think they would miscalculate. The 7D line isn't meant for feature-only freak low end consumers. It was always geared at upper tier users. My point is that I think the end result will be (hopefully) something notably improved. [/quote]

Okay, let's try this again. 

Don't equate what people on this forum think is important with what the target market thinks is important. The 7D is targeted to upper tier users. Most upper tier users are not worried about the things that people on this forum obsess over. These specs would indicate that Canon did their market research and found that features like a top-notch autofocus system are more important to buyers than small improvements in dynamic range.


----------



## jebrady03 (Aug 22, 2014)

Read about half the thread and don't have time to read more...

Perhaps... dual digic 6 is to accommodate a higher resolution (aka: fine detail) sensor?


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 22, 2014)

I think what is important is when the pre-orders start ???


----------



## wtlloyd (Aug 22, 2014)

I always see these shopping lists of all the desired features users are demanding in the next camera. "Gimme everything ya got, and don't charge over $2K.

Why would Canon sell you the last camera you'll ever need to buy?

Oh, and 4K video is gonna stay in the cinema series until they are forced to bring it in, as late as possible. Just like they're doing with high megapixel.


----------



## ScottyP (Aug 22, 2014)

What is "built in flash with radio trigger function"? Is it just saying the on board flash can act as a master? That is not "radio trigger". Is it? 

It would be pretty cool if it had a built-in radio trigger for RT flashes, wouldn't it?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 23, 2014)

ScottyP said:


> What is "built in flash with radio trigger function"? Is it just saying the on board flash can act as a master? That is not "radio trigger". Is it?
> 
> It would be pretty cool if it had a built-in radio trigger for RT flashes, wouldn't it?



"It can't have WiFi because it is a metal body and there is no decent place to put an antenna"
"built in flash with Radio Trigger Function"

Does anyone else realize that the RT flash controller and WiFi use the same 2.4Ghz band?


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> I was REALLY, REALLY hoping Canon would really show something impressive on the sensor front with the 7D II. If the camera really does hit the streets with a 20mp sensor, I fully expect it to have the same DR limitations as all of Canon's previous sensors.



So if we're going by the 70D...a 13 stop sensor with good shadow latitude (as long as you don't turn off all NR for an online "Canon vs. Exmor" test) and good high ISO to 6400.

Which of course is NOTHING LIKE the Exmor APS-C equivalent with 13*.3* stops, *slightly better* shadow latitude, and *slightly better* ISO 6400!

However will we survive :



> Also worried about the "fine detail"...I really don't want them to start removing AA filters.



Total guess, but maybe they're using the Dual Pixels for more then just AF.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

RGF said:


> Details about the sensor are lacking. Great marketing buzz terms but does the sensor have significantly better DR (vs 70D and 5DM3).



The 70D is at 13 stops. There isn't room for "significantly better" DR with a 14-bit ADC.


----------



## pablo (Aug 23, 2014)

Lets not forget that the 7D was the first DSLR with proper video functions built in as standard (PAL mode, manual exposure mode, full frame rate, dedicated button)

My Take:


Kit lenses: 18-135 IS STM and 15-85 IS STM (This would be a new lens)

Sh1t lenses. Slow max aperture. Variable.

CF, UDMA mode 7 + SD, UHS-I

No CF. Macbooks and imacs don't like it. SD getting there now.

No GPS or WiFi

Good. No kitchen sink or torch either.

Fixed LCD, with no touch function.

Robust. Good.

20.2MP “Fine Detail” CMOS Sensor (I want more information on this)

So long as it is 16MP when cropped to 16:9 aspect and downsamples directly to 4k...

Dual Pixel CMOS AF

Who cares?

Dual DIGIC 6 Processors

So long as like the 7D you can have 1080 output during recording. Strike that. 4k output with monitoring.

65 AF points “All Cross-type”. Dual cross on the center point.

I like the 19 point system over the 45 point system. Easier to actually identify a tracking point AND it makes you work. I like cameras that reward you putting some work in.

10fps

ISO 100-12800, ISO Boost mode 25600 and 51200

Great. If it translates to usable video at say 1600 or 3200.

1080p/720p both get 60fps

If it's going to have the same 5 year shelf life as the 7d it needs the throughput for 4k. Maybe as a firmware update or something. Cannot be priced above GH4 and a7s and not have some 4K path present or future. Can not.

Servo AF for video shooting.

Who cares. If you use AF for video go and buy a $200 camcorder you mug.

Anti-flicker mode, eliminates flickers under flickering lights (e.g. fluorescent lamps).

Phase issue. Mains issue. Cameras cannot fix this. They can synchro scan. Which isn't the same thing.

Spot metering size 1.8%

Built-in flash with radio trigger function.

Mic and headphones connectors

Can sync time between 7D II cameras.

Better with SDI port. Let it integrate with a wider range of cameras. There are some people with small genitals who will only ever want to use full frame because they have deep pockets and little understanding of manual focus in video.

Lens electronic MF

About 100% coverage OVF

Want to see....

A lanc port for fine control of STM focus.

An uncompressed output. Chip straight into an APR encoder like the Ninja etc.

A three band minijack TRS stylee. No space for a full ballanced XLR port. Adaptors on ebay from china within 48 hours.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> The 7D was the softest Canon DSLR I've owned (and I've owned a bunch). So any move away from that buttery, waxy look is progress.



You weren't using the right ACR settings...or were using DPP. (Seriously.)

That said, I agree with you on RAW sharpness and taking more post processing. I wouldn't miss an AA filter.


----------



## drm (Aug 23, 2014)

New at this and first time post so I might be way off base here.

But I can imagine a couple of things that could be done by using the dual pixel information. 

Once you know how far out-of-focus the pixel is, can’t that information be used in a real-time sharpening algorithm? Provide more or less sharpening based on how out of focus that part of the picture is. Or if that part of the picture in way out of focus add no sharpening. 

Another would be to map the 64 AF point to the dual pixel information and determine the accuracy of each point over time and maybe even do a per AF point micro adjustment. 

Dean


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 23, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Don't equate what people on this forum think is important with what the target market thinks is important. The 7D is targeted to upper tier users. Most upper tier users are not worried about the things that people on this forum obsess over. These specs would indicate that Canon did their market research and found that features like a top-notch autofocus system are more important to buyers than small improvements in dynamic range.



For me, there is the "blue sky wish list" and then there is reality. I know that my wish list will not be met and quite frankly, that doesn't bother me very much. What I am really looking for in the camera is greatly improved autofocus capability, and if the rumoured specs are right, it will do the job and I will order one.

I also shoot video with a DSLR. I am VERY happy with having a headphone jack... that's a bonus! I expected 1080 at 60Fps so that's no surprise. I did not expect 4K video so no surprise there.

I am disappointed that I will not have the ability to remote control by WiFi, but that isn't a deal breaker. As said above, I will order one ASAP.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > The 7D was the softest Canon DSLR I've owned (and I've owned a bunch). So any move away from that buttery, waxy look is progress.
> ...



I use Lightroom. Trust me when I say I had several 7D's, and all of them performed this way regardless of settings. My 70D is much, much better.

I'm not sure what the exact cause was. I believe it was a result of several factors, perhaps a "sot focus" combined with a buttery AA filter. My keeper rate, with several 7D's was considerably less than any other Canon DSLR I have owned, and across the same set of lenses. I shoot mostly nature, and the 7D just hated organic colors.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 23, 2014)

The points Jrista has made about AA filters and oversampling are bang on the money. For a sensor at super35 which in size is between an APS-C & APS-H sensor to be able to fill a cinema screen with sharp images is no mean feat. The current cameras mainly used are the Arri Alexa and the Red Epic / Dragon as well as a fair few still on film. The point is digital cinema cameras have AA filters and they are part of the overall optical design. New cameras in development also retain them. Yes they rob a tiny amount of resolution but so many factors affect that anyway. The cinema lenses are held to tolerances far in excess of stills lenses even great ones like the Zeiss Otus never more so with zooms. 

Oversampling is the only way forwards the only downside is file size everything else is a gain and oversampling means Raw files will not nessisarily be the only option with wider gamut Rec2020 RGB will make a comeback for video which is an open format and not subject to manufacturer raw conversion and easily conforms to MXF or DPX. 

The subject of pixel size, resolution, colorimagery, dynamic range & nyquist can get very complicated and for designers the criteria is always about the compromise. Systems designed to match like the Olympus / Panasonic 4/3rds (it never had to use legacy lenses) will always be broken by creatives and that is far better for diversity. The holly grail is the widest DR and the highest resolution both can be limited but not expanded in a set system.


----------



## jrista (Aug 23, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelHodges said:
> ...



Let me ask, what do you think of this IQ:











Is that waxy and horrible and hateful? Because that's a 7D. So is this:






And this:






And all of these:






















In practice...I've never really experienced the supposed "waxy, extremely softening effect of the 7D's AA filter." Only at particularly high ISO settings, where the 7D does not perform well for numerous reasons, have I ever experienced a loss in color fidelity and sharpness that I really did not like.


----------



## preppyak (Aug 23, 2014)

pablo said:


> 65 AF points “All Cross-type”. Dual cross on the center point.
> 
> I like the 19 point system over the 45 point system. Easier to actually identify a tracking point AND it makes you work. I like cameras that reward you putting some work in.


Can't tell if this is serious or not. Both because the 19pts are contained within the 65pts (so you can opt not to use the extra 46), and because by that logic, you should really just want one focus point. Or a film camera...

Just seems odd to want all the video specs that don't really belong on a traditional DSLR (but would be great to have), yet scoff at the one reasonable spec


----------



## ScottyP (Aug 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



What if they just did a non-Bayer pixel arrangement, like Fuji? Isn't that supposed to let you ditch the AA filter?


----------



## jrista (Aug 23, 2014)

ScottyP said:


> What if they just did a non-Bayer pixel arrangement, like Fuji? Isn't that supposed to let you ditch the AA filter?



LOL. We had a very extensive debate about that not too long ago. The 6x6 pixel interpolation of the Fuji results in soft detail, and it obliterates a lot of fine detail. Technically speaking, if you oversampled enough, you could indeed interpolate more pixels together...but you would really have to be significantly oversampling. The problem with Fuji's sensor is it does not oversample the lenses at all in most cases, or enough in the best cases (those cases being when you are either at a very narrow aperture, or just have a crappy lens.)

Oversampling is a pretty specific use case. No one has really done that these days...not at any wider aperture...you would have to be at f/22 at least on most lenses these days before you really just barely begin to oversample with any existing APS-C sensors...and you would need to be around f/32 or so before FF sensors begin to oversample.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 23, 2014)

These specs sound like an update of 7D very conservative, with the exception of autofocus. ??? The big question will be: The picture quality is the same for 70D, or have visible improvements? :-\


----------



## pablo (Aug 23, 2014)

preppyak said:


> pablo said:
> 
> 
> > 65 AF points “All Cross-type”. Dual cross on the center point.
> ...



1. Yes entirely serious.

2. No. 19 larger points filling the centre third of the frame is not the same thing as 45 or 65 pints filling the same area with some points ignored. In you model you would have larger gaps between the af points where things like say, adjacent point tracking weren't happening. One of the great things with the EOS 7D was the ability to select one AF point, but for the camera also to have cognisnece of the adjacent 4. Just in case the subject was faster, or the camera smarter than the user.

3. "By that logic.." you lost me. That is the vocabulary of the flamer. "I don't understand what you said, so I'll apply my misunderstood logic to try and make you look ridiculous." It's a false dichotomy. 

By my logic, I only want one AF point at any one time. Sometimes that is the centre point. For say a steam train pummelling right down the lens at me. Sometimes it is on an upper left third cross section or upper right third cross section, for say portraiture. Sometimes it is on a lower third, when I'm composing a nice skyscape at sunset against a still firth of clyde.

I won't attempt to understand your logic. I use manual AF point selection a lot of the time. I find 19 enough.
Shock horror, I sometime use MF. But I never ever ever use auto AF point select.

So in answer to your poser. Yeah, sometimes I only want one AF point. (Quite how you make the uber patronising leap to film use I don't comprehend) But I would like a choice of AF points to use.

Sometimes when I'm tracking a moving subject, I find 45 tiny af points just too many. I got on great with the EOS 7D system is all. I'm sorry that provokes so much ire. 

Maybe you should use a compact in green square mode if you want to surrender all control to your camera?

Interested in how you made the leap that I should use film. Please explain.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

Stu_bert said:


> Sure but a 20MP vs a 24MP is 10% difference on X and Y axis approximately. Are Canon that much behind the competition?



No they are not. Not too long ago I spent an unreasonable amount of time comparing files from the Sony A7 (24 MP AA filter) to the A7R (36 MP no AA filter). I always resized the 24 MP file to 36 MP with very light sharpening (scaling tends to soften) so that size (and therefore magnification) differences didn't affect my judgement. 

You're looking at a nearly 25% axis gain in this comparison vs. 10% for the APS-C sensors.

My conclusion? Occasionally an area of very, very fine detail would be rendered better on the 36 MP sensor. This would be visible while pixel peeping but never in print.

I came to a similar conclusion when I mixed in 5D3 files, though the 5D3 file must be RAW. The JPEGs fell behind. Also, when converting the 5D3 file you have to be a bit more aggressive with the detail and sharpening settings. The Sony sensors would handle heavy processing a bit better because of this.

At the resolutions we're dealing with today I would say you need a 50% gain on each axis before differences become visible in print, all other differences (i.e. sensor size) being equal.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> Let me ask, what do you think of this IQ:
> 
> In practice...I've never really experienced the supposed "waxy, extremely softening effect of the 7D's AA filter." Only at particularly high ISO settings, where the 7D does not perform well for numerous reasons, have I ever experienced a loss in color fidelity and sharpness that I really did not like.




Those are such tiny jpegs, JR. Would you mind posting the RAW file to determine out-of-camera IQ? 

Also, it looks like flash may have been used. These would present completely different conditions.

The 7D is certainly capable of getting nice shots when you fill the frame and light is perfect. My problem was the lower keeper rate when compared to the numerous other Canon DSLR's I've used and/or owned.


----------



## jrista (Aug 23, 2014)

pablo said:


> preppyak said:
> 
> 
> > pablo said:
> ...



It's actually been clearly demonstrated on many occasions, with AF systems from multiple manufacturers now, that a high density reticulated AF system is far better for tracking than a system with widely distributed AF points like the 7D. Canon, Nikon, Sony, and a few other manufacturers all have high density reticulated (net-like) AF systems now. Canon's 61pt system in particular, with so many cross-type points, has proven to be remarkably effective at locking onto and tracking fast and erratically moving subjects. 

There is nothing wrong with having more points. The new AF systems support the same thing the 7D did, with allowing nearby points to "assist". It's called AF Expansion mode, where you select one, then allow the surrounding four or eight points to assist. You can also use zone mode, which unlike all points mode, allows you to chose on of a couple sizes of restricted, selectable zones for tracking.

Owning both a 7D and 5D III myself, there is absolutely no question which AF system is superior...the 61pt reticulated system kicks the crap out of the 19pt system. You can still use a single point if you wish, and in the case of focusing on slow moving subject such as a perched or standing bird or posing wildlife, that's exactly what you want. When it comes to subjects in motion...nothing beats having more AF points in higher density, especially if they are ALL cross-type.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> a foveon sensor does not need an AA filter because it does not use a bayer pattern.



Of course a foveon sensor needs an AA filter (unless it's like say maybe 60MP+ APS-C or something).


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> I use Lightroom. Trust me when I say I had several 7D's, and all of them performed this way regardless of settings. My 70D is much, much better.



So the fact that I don't see this means I have a special 7D? :

If it wasn't a settings issue then probably a focus issue.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Lightmaster said:
> 
> 
> > a foveon sensor does not need an AA filter because it does not use a bayer pattern.
> ...



Wikipedia disagrees ;D

I was under the impression that the Foveon sensors shipped without AA filters, though I wouldn't swear to it.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2014)

unfocused said:


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



Okay, let's try this again. 

Don't equate what people on this forum think is important with what the target market thinks is important. The 7D is targeted to upper tier users. Most upper tier users are not worried about the things that people on this forum obsess over. These specs would indicate that Canon did their market research and found that features like a top-notch autofocus system are more important to buyers than small improvements in dynamic range.
[/quote]

They probably found that their better lenses and the money people have invested help people around and that since improving AF costs them wayyyyy less than improving sensors they may as well just save the money.

It's a bit surprising they'd not bother with 4k though, but then again, with they way they've been acting, I guess not.


----------



## jrista (Aug 23, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Let me ask, what do you think of this IQ:
> ...



I never use flash. I own a flash, but the last time I pulled it out of my closet was probably two years ago. And you cannot make the argument that finding and using good light is a bad thing, or unfair. I find and use good light REGARDLESS of which camera I'm using, regardless of how big it's sensor frame is. That's a part of being a good bird and wildlife photographer...to chase good light. This is my photography. This is how my photography looks. And all of those photos were taken with the 7D. I believe the examples speak for themselves...an AA filter is not a bad or highly detrimental thing that must be done away with. It has never negatively affected my work.

But your backtracking now. Your switching the problem your complaining about. Now it's the lower keeper rate, instead of the supposed waxy appearance.  I will happily agree that the 7D had AF problems. It had inconsistent lock-on rates, and had an inherent jitter. But that is an entirely different argument, and has nothing to do with the supposed "waxy" appearance that the 7D, based on your otherwise unqualified statements, simply has...period. (It only sometimes gets waxy at really high ISO...however I think LTRLI has a better explanation for it...split green CFA.) 

I don't want to share RAWs for some of my better works, these are photos I'm working on selling these days, however my entire point is that out of camera IQ isn't the end-all-be-all here. I've been explicitly making the argument that regardless of what impact an AA filter might have, it doesn't matter in the end. Apply a little sharpening...and bam, any softness attributed to the AA filter is simply gone.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > I use Lightroom. Trust me when I say I had several 7D's, and all of them performed this way regardless of settings. My 70D is much, much better.
> ...



With over 100,000 actuations in the wilderness of the Northern Rockies, the 7D's just killed me. Just too many missed shots, and way too much post processing for the rest. How valuable is your time? The 70D is a winner in comparison. 

Hopefully the 7D II is, too.


----------



## jrista (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Lightmaster said:
> ...



Foveon sensors do ship without AA filters. They also do not suffer from color moire. However, they still NEED AA filters, because they do suffer from moire in monochrome.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Details about the sensor are lacking. Great marketing buzz terms but does the sensor have significantly better DR (vs 70D and 5DM3).
> ...



??? Where are you getting these numbers????


----------



## pablo (Aug 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> There is nothing wrong with having more points.



For me, there is. It makes the viewfinder too fussy for my tastes.

For me.

For me.

For me.

If you find different great. You are not absolutely correct. 

Broad church and all that.

If the 7D 2 has a dedicated AF processor like the 7D, then swell. If the VF overlays can mimick the 19 point array then great. We are all happy happy bunnies.

Neither you or I are correct or wrong. This is why I prefer photography forums to gear forums.


----------



## thepancakeman (Aug 23, 2014)

This inspires me...to get a 5D3 (if the specs here are true.) :-\


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Lightmaster said:
> ...



Why would foveon not need AA filters? It doesn't make sense. Take a black and white LCD and make it 24" and draw black lines on white. Make it have 800x600 resolution. You don't think you'd see jaggies all over unless you applied AA?

Sure some foveon ship without AA filters, so do some Bayer, it doesn't mean it's ideal.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Aug 23, 2014)

As others have said....yawn. I'll be so disappointed in Canon if they use the same sensor as the 70D.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 23, 2014)

> But your backtracking now. Your switching the problem your complaining about. Now it's the lower keeper rate, instead of the supposed waxy appearance.  I will happily agree that the 7D had AF problems. It had inconsistent lock-on rates, and had an inherent jitter. But that is an entirely different argument, and has nothing to do with the supposed "waxy" appearance that the 7D, based on your otherwise unqualified statements, simply has...period. (It only sometimes gets waxy at really high ISO...however I think LTRLI has a better explanation for it...split green CFA.)




It's all part of the same package: a lower keeper rate compared to my other DSLR's with the same lens set.




> I don't want to share RAWs for some of my better works, these are photos I'm working on selling these days



Good luck. 




> however my entire point is that out of camera IQ isn't the end-all-be-all here.




Within the context of these tech discussions, it most certainly is. All of these posts, all of these feature-craving threads are a hive-mind arch meant to cheer on the ultimate goal: the elimination of post processing.






> I've been explicitly making the argument that regardless of what impact an AA filter might have, it doesn't matter in the end. Apply a little sharpening...and bam, any softness attributed to the AA filter is simply gone.



That can be said about every IQ deficiency ever known to photography: Why improve DR when you can shoot brackets? Why improve noise in RAW when there are so many software programs? Why have IS when you can use a tripod?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2014)

pablo said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing wrong with having more points.
> ...



The 7D had too low AF point density. They were all spaced far apart so for soccer you'd use one point and it would be harder to get it tracked perfectly, but then you'd add helpers but they be too far out, farther out than one 1 series or even the 5D2 and they'd be too grabby and prone to grab stuff too far out of the actual target.

The 7D2 if it has all these points shoul dhave much better AI Servo just from the density alone.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Lightmaster said:
> ...



They are. That's part of why they produce lousy images full of artifacts.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> ??? Where are you getting these numbers????



Imaging Resource tested the 70D using Imatest before they decided to cut costs by quoting DxO for DR measurements. The 70D has 13 stops of DR in RAW.

Naturally it's going to have more shadow noise then Exmor and therefore less latitude (ability to push the shadows up), though it's not that dramatic if you actually use the NR sliders in ACR.

I am deeply disappointed that Imaging Resource is abandoning Imatest for DxO. It leaves us without a reviewer who performs consistent, valid, *photographic* DR tests. (DPReview has basically dropped their "ACR best" testing and reports JPEG.) Future comments based on DxO SNR nonsense are going to be 10x what they are now.


----------



## pablo (Aug 23, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> The 7D had too low AF point density. They were all spaced far apart so for soccer you'd use one point and it would be harder to get it tracked perfectly, but then you'd add helpers but they be too far out, farther out than one 1 series or even the 5D2 and they'd be too grabby and prone to grab stuff too far out of the actual target.
> 
> The 7D2 if it has all these points shoul dhave much better AI Servo just from the density alone.



But thats where the AF behaviour controls come in. I spent about three weeks worth of shoots getting my 7D to play nice to the point where I knew that for most scenarios with the right behaviour on my part it would give me a pretty much 100% focus hit rate (composition, exposure, facial experessions not so much)

Ok let it have 65 af points thats great. just so long as it also has a dedicated af processor and isn't slowing things down elsewhere.

Still not sure where the film analogy came in. Petulance I think.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Why would foveon not need AA filters?



"Shipping" and "needing" are two different things. I haven't had enough time with a Foveon sensor to know whether or not they need an AA filter, but I believe they do not ship with them.


----------



## weixing (Aug 23, 2014)

Hi,
The specification look good to me:
1) No GPS - fine with me... I already had an external GPS unit which capture GPS signal way faster than 6D GPS and got map function.
2) No wifi - not importance to me... may be they got built in radio trigger, that's why cannot put wifi??
3) No 4K - no problem... running out of hard disk space, 1080p is good enough for my use... 1080p file size is already too large for me, but I do hope they had 1080p 1:1 video crop mode.
4) 20.2MP - enough for me, but I do hope they can improve the high ISO performance by at least half a stop compare to 70D and I might change my 6D to it.
5) Hope 7D2 had a silent shutter mode... very useful for shooting shy birds.

Hope the pricing will be close to 6D, so I can just sell my 6D and get this one without spending too much...

Have a nice day.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

pablo said:


> But thats where the AF behaviour controls come in. I spent about three weeks worth of shoots getting my 7D to play nice to the point where I knew that for most scenarios with the right behaviour on my part it would give me a pretty much 100% focus hit rate (composition, exposure, facial experessions not so much)



This was the issue with the 7D on two fronts. Processing required some learning as well. It seems like everyone I knew in person who initially complained about IQ wanted to carry over settings from their 20D or 5D/5D2, as if the ACR sliders were locked.

I had a similar experience with AF. You had to have the right settings for the subject.



> Ok let it have 65 af points thats great. just so long as it also has a dedicated af processor and isn't slowing things down elsewhere.



The 7D had a dedicated AF CPU. I can pretty much guarantee that the 7D2 does as well, or that the dual Digic 6 processors have enough bandwidth that handling AF is not an issue.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > ??? Where are you getting these numbers????
> ...



I think the IR tests are the nonsense. Unless they were normalizing to 5MP or something.
Even for their regular tests there scenes and lighting have changed again and again.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 23, 2014)

Canon seems to *just no get it.* ??? It's not 2004 any more. Many Pro Editorial and Advertising Photographers, don't just want WiFi, in many cases they *Can'T Do Their Job* without WiFi.

With so much Professional Photography going direct-to-web-site, speed isn't the main thing, it's the only thing.-


----------



## pablo (Aug 23, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> Canon seems to *just no get it.* ??? It's not 2004 any more. Many Pro Editorial and Advertising Photographers, don't just want WiFi, in many cases they *Can'T Do Their Job* without WiFi.
> 
> With so much Professional Photography going direct-to-web-site, speed isn't the main thing, it's the only thing.-



Straight from the camera? You want to run lightroom on a 3.2 inch screen?

Most sports togs run everything through a laptop, and most of the software isn't adobe. And laptops have usb ports for cards and wifi chips.

I'd pay less for a good camera that just takes photos thanks.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 23, 2014)

In the past, it was said this would have some special video features. Seems like servo mode for video is something that the 70D already has, at least in part, and 1080p60 is certainly nothing close to "special" as it exists on earlier Canon compacts, so where are the special video features?


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I think the IR tests are the nonsense. Unless they were normalizing to 5MP or something.
> Even for their regular tests there scenes and lighting have changed again and again.



Oh boy here we go... 

* The Imatest DR test is performed using a step chart. It has nothing to do with Imaging Resource's scene tests.

* "Normalizing" has nothing to do with photographic DR and does not change it in the least.

* You, I, or anyone else can personally verify Imatest results by simply looking at a transmission step wedge shot.

* DxO measures SNR which does NOT directly translate to photographic dynamic range.

* We cannot verify DxO's results because they are run through a 'black box' algorithm.

* DxO's results generally do not correspond to results obtained using a transmission step wedge. Put another way: you can see with your own two eyes that a 70D yields more DR then they claim, and that an Exmor sensor yields less.


----------



## Steve (Aug 23, 2014)

pablo said:


> Straight from the camera? You want to run lightroom on a 3.2 inch screen?
> 
> Most sports togs run everything through a laptop, and most of the software isn't adobe. And laptops have usb ports for cards and wifi chips.



Do they carry their laptops on the sidelines, pull their cards and upload in between plays? Because, personally, I think it would be pretty rad to have the ability to tap a menu item on the display and have that upload a photo/photos to a laptop or straight to the editing desk rather than waiting for a timeout to rush back to the computer, pull the card, copy the files and then upload to the editing desk and risk missing action. 



pablo said:


> I'd pay less for a good camera that just takes photos thanks.



This is just absurd. How much of the cost of any modern electronic device is tied up in wifi in this The Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Fourteen? Please.


----------



## Zv (Aug 23, 2014)

Does make you wonder though, if these end up being the final specs, why didn't they bang out a 7D replacement right after the 70D was announced? Why did we have to wait (still waiting) for a 2fps bump from the previous model and what seems like the exact same sensor from the 70D? There is nothing groundbreaking here, which is prob the reason a lot of people are feeling a bit peeved. It's the lowest end of what we expected. The bare minimum. Still, it'll more than likely be an awesome camera for sports and wildlife. 

But will it still be awesome in 5 years time?? ???


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> * DxO measures SNR which does NOT directly translate to photographic dynamic range.



DxO measures, but does not directly report, well capacity and SnR.

The method of determining DR from that is shown here:

http://sensorgen.info/Calculations.html


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> In the past, it was said this would have some special video features. Seems like servo mode for video is something that the 70D already has, at least in part, and 1080p60 is certainly nothing close to "special" as it exists on earlier Canon compacts, so where are the special video features?



I'm a stills photographer so I don't really care either way, but...if Canon hopes to gain rather then lose market share in this segment of the video market they really need to have 4k. And stop relying on hackers to put in critical features (no offense to the amazing ML team).

This is more of a shock to me then the sensor. I would have loved to see a multilayer sensor leap, but I'm not one of the people who is going to shed a tear if the 7D2 "only" has a 70D or moderately improved 70D sensor. I'm not mesmerized by DxO and I know most of what people fight over online is meaningless in the real world.

With apologies to Ansel Adams: There is nothing worse than a slightly higher DR image with slightly less shadow noise of a fuzzy concept.

That said...if these are the specs I will likely spend my money on other things and not upgrade my 7D for a while. The specs are solid, just not enough above what I have right now for what I do.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> In the past, it was said this would have some special video features. Seems like servo mode for video is something that the 70D already has, at least in part, and 1080p60 is certainly nothing close to "special" as it exists on earlier Canon compacts, so where are the special video features?



apparently the new ultra fast dual pixel video af mark ii (perhaps it will have built-in focusing aids and zebra and such too?)


seems a bit lame to leave out 4k though considering the product shelf life of the 7 series and the current competition


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > I think the IR tests are the nonsense. Unless they were normalizing to 5MP or something.
> ...



Put another way the 1/3 stops difference between 70D and aps-c exmor sure doesn't match what ones sees with their own eyes when out taking photos or the huge difference between D810 and 5D3....


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > * DxO measures SNR which does NOT directly translate to photographic dynamic range.
> ...



Great. That tells me what I already know. That they are not measuring or reporting photographic DR. And that there are formulas I would have to hunt down or reconstruct in order to verify their results. (Though I suppose that would be possible to do for anyone so inclined.)

Again, DxO DR measurements are nonsense.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 23, 2014)

Interesting. Surprised the sensor isn't going to be a 24MP as that rumour has been quite consistent. It was the original rumoured resolution and I disbelieved it when the rumours began to indicate 20.2 MP shortly after the 70D release. When the rumours moved back towards the 24MP, I thought the 20.2 thing was just an aberrant stray rumour. Mind you, just because it's the same megapixel as the 70D, doesn't mean it's the same sensor. Still, I'd have thought they'd want to differentiate the 7DII more by giving it a very distinctive sensor, with it's own resolution. I figured the 7D2 would get a new sensor, while the 70D sensor "trickled down" to the Rebels. Using the same resolution as the 70D might be a somewhat risky move, given that people will "perceive" it as being derivative "warmed over" sensor in a premium product. And make no mistake about it, the sensor will be under intense (if not always logical) scrutiny. Only time will tell if it's substantially different from the 70D's sensor, regardless of the resolution--and I suspect it will have some interesting tricks. 

Resolution aside, I think the specs make sense. I find it hard to believe that some would be "meh" about a camera with 65 all cross-type AF system! That is huge! Bonus if they give f8 capability to some degree--probably with the centre point. Time will also tell if the DPAF and the viewfinder AF are capable of working together to improve AF speed and accuracy, as suggested in the patent rumour. And if it auto calibrates lenses--well that also could be HUGE! 

The 10fps is awesome. Not quite as awesome as the rumoured 12fps, but still superb. I wonder if the dichotomy relates to a latent engineering capability in the camera? It's possible they engineered the thing to achieve 12fps, then firmware limited it to 10. Then if a competitor starts to close in on or exceed it's frame rate, voila--a firmware update brings you to 12fps (or faster). 

Time will tell of course. CR sounds very confident, but a few days ago and for some time previous, they've been very confident it would have a 1D top plate, have 24MP and shoot 12fps or faster! Sounds like there are a lot of "wed hewwings" being foisted onto us Elmer Fudds waiting for info! LOL


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Put another way the 1/3 stops difference between 70D and aps-c exmor sure doesn't match what ones sees with their own eyes when out taking photos or the huge difference between D810 and 5D3....



So we're going to draw conclusions from an entirely different format???

The "huge difference" you are referring to in 5D3 vs. D8x0 online tests is not DR per se (the 5D3 clips to black about the same time as the D810) but latitude: the ability to push shadows without image destroying noise.

And it's a "huge difference" which can only be seen by turning all NR completely off for the Canon sensor :


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2014)

Zv said:


> Does make you wonder though, if these end up being the final specs, why didn't they bang out a 7D replacement right after the 70D was announced? Why did we have to wait (still waiting) for a 2fps bump from the previous model and what seems like the exact same sensor from the 70D? There is nothing groundbreaking here, which is prob the reason a lot of people are feeling a bit peeved. It's the lowest end of what we expected. The bare minimum. Still, it'll more than likely be an awesome camera for sports and wildlife.
> 
> But will it still be awesome in 5 years time?? ???



Maybe the JapaneseCanonfangirlsPost had it right:
"
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."

Kind of sad if the once glorious Canon has sunken to such lines of thinking.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Put another way the 1/3 stops difference between 70D and aps-c exmor sure doesn't match what ones sees with their own eyes when out taking photos or the huge difference between D810 and 5D3....
> ...



which is also DR

and mostly importantly regardless of how you feel like defining terms, what matters in the end



> And it's a "huge difference" which can only be seen by turning all NR completely off for the Canon sensor :



yeah whatever sure


----------



## pablo (Aug 23, 2014)

Steve said:


> pablo said:
> 
> 
> > Straight from the camera? You want to run lightroom on a 3.2 inch screen?
> ...



No. They either pay extra for the wifi add-on that a lot of folk don't want, or they do it at half time / full time.


----------



## Steve (Aug 23, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Resolution aside, I think the specs make sense. I find it hard to believe that some would be "meh" about a camera with 65 all cross-type AF system! That is huge!
> 
> The 10fps is awesome. Not quite as awesome as the rumoured 12fps, but still superb. I wonder if the dichotomy relates to a latent engineering capability in the camera? It's possible they engineered the thing to achieve 12fps, then firmware limited it to 10. Then if a competitor starts to close in on or exceed it's frame rate, voila--a firmware update brings you to 12fps (or faster).



Sony already dropped a crop camera with 79pt AF system (granted, not all cross-type, but still excellent by all accounts), 12fps burst, and a better sensor earlier this year for less than $1700. There is no reason that Canon should be falling behind Sony of all companies. As others have said, this is basically the bare minimum that Canon could come out with as an update to the 5 year old 7D and its really just iterative and not revolutionary. It will really depend on the asking price whether this is a good camera or not. At $1500 this will be fantastic. At >$2000, not so much.

I was kind of hoping that Canon would have built a 7DII that would make me seriously think about upgrading from my 1DIV but this spec list, if true, isn't really tempting me. Also, I'm pretty amused at all the people on this forum who have said that marketing guys have no sway over the engineering department now sagely acknowledging that they are probably purposefully gimping frame rate purely for marketing reasons.


----------



## Steve (Aug 23, 2014)

pablo said:


> No. They either pay extra for the wifi add-on that a lot of folk don't want, or they do it at half time / full time.



Right, so wifi is indeed useful and would be a welcome addition to a pro/prosumer level camera


----------



## pwp (Aug 23, 2014)

Marauder said:


> The 10fps is awesome. Not quite as awesome as the rumoured 12fps, but still superb.


Right, 65 cross type AF points and 10 FPS indicates a strong action-sports performer. Just hoping the buffer depth is there to make the frame rate truly useful.

-pw


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2014)

So long as they don't gimp the buffer and the AF sensor is 5D3/1D series class and not 7D class (IMO the 7D sensor, yeah it had lots of points and speed but it was more like xxD precise and nothing like 1 series for most scenarios) then it should at least be quite the AF sports beast though.


----------



## pablo (Aug 23, 2014)

Steve said:


> pablo said:
> 
> 
> > No. They either pay extra for the wifi add-on that a lot of folk don't want, or they do it at half time / full time.
> ...



Define prosumer? Quantify extra cost..


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 23, 2014)

pablo said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > Canon seems to *just no get it.* ??? It's not 2004 any more. Many Pro Editorial and Advertising Photographers, don't just want WiFi, in many cases they *Can'T Do Their Job* without WiFi.
> ...


Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the workflow at the World Cup was photographer takes picture, transferred to network where someone else edits the picture and posts it. Photos got posted minutes after being taken.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 23, 2014)

pablo said:


> Straight from the camera? You want to run lightroom on a 3.2 inch screen?



*Yes, straight from the camera.* Many Pros are using *custom functions* to make their straight-from-the-camera-jpeg look like they had been post-processed. They brew a *secret-sauce* for each their various shoots styles.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 23, 2014)

Steve said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Resolution aside, I think the specs make sense. I find it hard to believe that some would be "meh" about a camera with 65 all cross-type AF system! That is huge!
> ...



"Interesting" response. 

Firstly, I've never said one way or another on whether Canon's marketing team impacts design. Perhaps you're thinking of another poster??

Secondly, "79 AF points, granted not all cross type..." That in itself speaks volumes. The D7100 has 51 AF points vs the 70D's 19. But only 15 of the D7100's are cross type. There is a HUGE difference between a big number of AF points, vs their type. Also, take a look at the Servo AF comparison between the D7100 and the 70D here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOM4r1gxsbs
Note the 70D's buffer is substantially better as well, which is a factor when shooting action. Unfortunately, the tester only shot both cameras in JPEG and RAW+JPEG, and not in RAW only. The 70D not only outperforms the buffer of the D7100 in JPEG by a large margin, it also does so in RAW only. Neither is stellar RAW+JPEG (original 7D after fw update beats them both handily there) but the 70D is still better in buffer depth. 

The above just emphasizes the point that just comparing paper specs is NOT the same as performance and you are automatically assuming that the 7D2 won't have superior AF. I can't say for sure yet, and neither can you, since we don't have a camera yet! The AF system would appear to have been a huge point for the 7D2, so I suspect it will be very potent. 

Hmm. You seem to be implying that I support deliberately minimizing the frame rate? I don't recall making any such assertions! This is just a speculation on my part. I don't support it---I'm merely speculating that it MIGHT be the case. 

Any further aspects of my post you might like to misconstrue???


----------



## Steve (Aug 23, 2014)

pablo said:


> Define prosumer? Quantify extra cost..



Cost is negligible to the point of being non-existent to the consumer. They put wifi in $200 point and shoots. The reason I mentioned pro and prosumer levels is because Canon already puts wifi in the bottom end, cheapest cameras they make and for some reason don't in the top level, most expensive cameras despite it being an incredibly useful feature for lots of working, professional photographers. I can't even begin to imagine why anybody would be _opposed_ to features, even if you think you wouldn't use them, especially when they have no measurable cost to the end user.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 23, 2014)

pwp said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > The 10fps is awesome. Not quite as awesome as the rumoured 12fps, but still superb.
> ...



I concur. We haven't heard anything about buffer. I suspect it will be deep. The current 7D outperforms both the 70D and, to an even greater degree the D7100, in terms of buffer depth. As a matter of fact, even shooting RAW+JPEG (with 17 in a burst) the 7D will massively outperform the D7100 doing JPEGS! I'd say the shallow buffer of the D7100 is probably the biggest single weakness in what is an otherwise impressive camera.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 23, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the workflow at the World Cup was photographer takes picture, transferred to network where someone else edits the picture and posts it. Photos got posted minutes after being taken.



Sounds about right to me. Many things need rapid turn-around, *Breaking News is a biggie.*


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 23, 2014)

My prediction, this thread will go beyong 30 pages. I haven't seen the exciment like this for long time ;D


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



"Photographic DR" would likely be less than DR measured this way, for a simple reason - we don't usually tolerate image detail that's near or at the noise floor.

This is measured to the noise floor.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 23, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > It certainly sounds good and yet if it doesn't do more than just give a 70D sensor without AA (and maybe it does do more) and no 4k it seems like it's something they *could've produced as is some time ago already*.
> ...



+1000

If the 7DII sensor is a tweaked/re-purposed 70D sensor, I'd be very disappointed. 

There's no point in a 7DII, IMO, if image quality is only marginally improved vs the 7D - and that's exactly the case with the 70D sensor. 
Is this really the best that Canon will have in the next 3-5 years for APS-C image quality ??

Well, I have a 70D already, so I guess I'm all set then. 
Bummer.


----------



## pablo (Aug 23, 2014)

Steve said:


> They put wifi in $200 point and shoots. The reason I mentioned pro and prosumer levels is because Canon already puts wifi in the bottom end, cheapest cameras they make and for some reason don't in the top level, most expensive cameras despite it being an incredibly useful feature for lots of working, professional photographers. I can't even begin to imagine why anybody would be _opposed_ to features, even if you think you wouldn't use them, especially when they have no measurable cost to the end user.



Do you want the lens from a $200 p&s on your DSLR? Do you want the flash from a $100 powershot? The screen?

Yes. Lets look to the consumer market for inspiration.... compact pixel pitch on a 135 DSLr sensor... must be in the 100's of MP. yeah. great? right?

Or do you want stuff that works properly?

A powershot that talks to your printer in the suburbs, or a high bandwith wifi connect in amongst 30 other high bandwith sports shooters. 

Yeah, lets have consumer grade built in pish.

Or let the folk who need it set it against tax and buy something with dual channels. security. bandwith, seperate battery units and reliability.

Go.

For.

It.


The bottom line is, canon will launch what they launch. It's very late here. Night xxxx


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 23, 2014)

pablo said:


> Yes. Lets look to the consumer market for inspiration.... compact pixel pitch on a 135 DSLr sensor... must be in the 100's of MP. yeah. great? right?



Absolutely, it would be great. I'd kill for that. Image quality would destroy current DSLR sensors (at high ISO too), and it would act as a built-in optically-perfect teleconverter as well.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > The "huge difference" you are referring to in 5D3 vs. D8x0 online tests is not DR per se (the 5D3 clips to black about the same time as the D810) but latitude: the ability to push shadows without image destroying noise.
> ...



Except for the part where it's not.



> and mostly importantly regardless of how you feel like defining terms...



I didn't define the terms. These are standard terms which were in use in the photographic industry long before I was born.



> > And it's a "huge difference" which can only be seen by turning all NR completely off for the Canon sensor :
> 
> 
> yeah whatever sure



Try processing the files yourself sometime. When you intelligently use the NR sliders the difference is nothing like the drama tests. There is a difference, Exmor is better, but the difference becomes a more subtle one.


----------



## Steve (Aug 23, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Secondly, "79 AF points, granted not all cross type..." That in itself speaks volumes. The D7100 has 51 AF points vs the 70D's 19. But only 15 of the D7100's are cross type. There is a HUGE difference between a big number of AF points, vs their type. Also, take a look at the Servo AF comparison between the D7100 and the 70D here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOM4r1gxsbs
> Note the 70D's buffer is substantially better as well, which is a factor when shooting action. Unfortunately, the tester only shot both cameras in JPEG and RAW+JPEG, and not in RAW only. The 70D not only outperforms the buffer of the D7100 in JPEG by a large margin, it also does so in RAW only. Neither is stellar RAW+JPEG (original 7D after fw update beats them both handily there) but the 70D is still better in buffer depth.



This part of your post doesn't mean anything. I was talking about the A77 II, not the D7100. The A77 II has a pretty damn good AF system by all accounts, a deep buffer, and 12fps - all of that feeding into a pretty fantastic sensor for a very reasonable price. That was my point - somebody already made the 7DII that most people around here were asking for, it just wasn't Canon. At least not yet. These specs CanonRumors put up may not be correct and, even if they are accurate, may indicate a fantastic camera _if the price is right_, but so far they aren't much to get excited about. That was the point of my post.

As for gimping framerates, that part wasn't directed specifically at you. Just because I quoted your post to discuss one point doesn't mean that the entire post is specifically addressing points that you have personally made. I wrote that last line because it has been a general vibe around here that when someone would say something like "I just hope the marketing guys don't gimp the 7DII!" many people would jump in with "I've worked in engineering for 3489054378924 years and that NEVER happens!" Mostly, it seems like its jrista but there are others as well. I just didn't feel like quote mining for a throw away line.


----------



## pablo (Aug 23, 2014)

too many numbers in that post stevie.

ever thought of trainspotting as a hobby?


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

Steve said:


> Sony already dropped a crop camera with 79pt AF system (granted, not all cross-type, but still excellent by all accounts), 12fps burst, and a better sensor earlier this year for less than $1700.



Every time I've looked at user reports Sony's DSLRs could not keep up in AF tracking with Canon or Nikon bodies. Not the 7D, and certainly not the 1DX or 5D3. 

It's not just point count. Many Nikon bodies have the same point count as the D3 or the D4. But talk to a Nikon shooter and the actual performance varies considerably. Didn't the D800 have the same "AF module" as the D4? I know a guy who will tell you straight out that it could not track like one. Not even close.



> There is no reason that Canon should be falling behind Sony of all companies.



Have you compared lenses? ;D

At this point a "revolution" in sensor tech will require multiple layers (for DR or for color) or at least 16-bit ADCs and sensel characteristics to produce meaningful bits beyond 14. This is true for Sony as well. I got excited when the rumors were for a multilayer sensor. Now that it appears this is not the case, I expect incremental improvements.


----------



## gsealy (Aug 23, 2014)

I read the posts and I didn't see anything about clean HDMI out. My thinking is that it should be a standard feature on the newer Canons. At least it would give the user the ability to record at a higher quality if they want to do it.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> "Photographic DR" would likely be less than DR measured this way, for a simple reason - we don't usually tolerate image detail that's near or at the noise floor.



DxO overstates DR for sensors with noise below their arbitrary threshold, and understates it for sensors with noise above their arbitrary threshold (especially in light of RAW conversion NR).

Perhaps more importantly, they're not measuring detail or steps in either case. If you photograph a step wedge with two cameras and one has slightly less noise in some of the otherwise pure black steps, DxO will count those as more DR! This is why when they "normalize" an image to 8 MP they report more DR.

It's silliness created by hardware nerds and not photographers. Someone needs to send DxO a few Ansel Adam's books.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 23, 2014)

I'm not talking about DxO's reporting of DR, I'm talking about computing real well capacity and read noise from DxO's measurements. DxO's interpretation of their own data is pretty much total crap, and I never visit their site. But the raw measurements are useful if properly interpreted.


----------



## gsealy (Aug 23, 2014)

Based on the specs and having the camera arsenal I already have, I won't be buying the 7DII. I have been thinking about the 7DI though. I do a fair amount of time lapse and the 7DI is rated at about a 200K shutter count. That is pretty stout for the current price of the 7DI.


----------



## dufflover (Aug 23, 2014)

x-vision said:


> +1000
> 
> If the 7DII sensor is a tweaked/re-purposed 70D sensor, I'd be very disappointed.
> 
> ...


My thoughts as well so add my +1 to that pile lol
I do like the IQ improvements from the 60D/7D to the EOS-M/70D age (yep used them all), but they were only really minor sharpness tweaks probably due to them doing a bit better on the AA filter front. I really do like my 70D but I'm not blind that it lacks on the DR front vs the competition (luckily I can make do). Like many others I was waiting for this to their comeback to at least match them in the sensor game, but if that "20.2MP" indicates what we're thinking ... then heck I'd rather keep my 70D with the flippy screen (great for low angle) and WiFi.

Then again I'm _obviously_ a stupid n00b shooter because I prefer a feature not put onto "Pro" bodies : 

Who knows, maybe they have improved things like the read noise significantly again to give a similar result to higher DR (a bit like how neater ISO grain not necessarily less still makes it a little more usable)


----------



## jrista (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Put another way the 1/3 stops difference between 70D and aps-c exmor sure doesn't match what ones sees with their own eyes when out taking photos or the huge difference between D810 and 5D3....
> ...



The 5D III does not clip to black at all...it uses a 2048 bias offset.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 23, 2014)

Steve said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Secondly, "79 AF points, granted not all cross type..." That in itself speaks volumes. The D7100 has 51 AF points vs the 70D's 19. But only 15 of the D7100's are cross type. There is a HUGE difference between a big number of AF points, vs their type. Also, take a look at the Servo AF comparison between the D7100 and the 70D here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOM4r1gxsbs
> ...



Well it's not really a throw away line if you're aiming it specifically at something I'd posted as speculation (a _speculation _ that the dichotomy in frame rates might mean that the camera has latent capabilities beyond what it might ship with. And the then imply that the _same _ people who are saying Canon marketing has no bearing on specs are "now sagely acknowledging that they are probably purposefully gimping frame rate purely for marketing reasons." Seems fairly direct. 

At any rate, my pondering is pure speculation of course, but it's possible. I also do concur that it would be far better for Canon to overreach and give 12fps over 10--but 10 is nothing to sneeze at! 

Regarding my D7100 vs 70D, I'm well aware that you weren't referring to the D7100. My point is that the D7100 vs 70D is analogous to the 7D2 vs the A77II comparison you were making. I wasn't as clear as I ought to have been. I used the D7100 vs 70D since both are now _known _ quantities. We can do direct comparisons, not just on paper figures, but on actual comparable results. The reason it springs to mind is I've seen many such comparisons made in less extensive reviews where the 51 point AF system is given the _win _ to the D7100 in terms of AF, simply based on the fact that it has 51 vs 19 points. Simply looking at the total number of AF points, and not just the type of AF point can be very deceptive. The 70D may only have 19, but they are all of the far more accurate cross type, compared to 15 cross type on the D7100. Moreover, in a more detailed review, such as the one I referenced, not only does the reviewer point that fact out, they also do a real world test of Servo capability, which the 19 point 70D system (which is a much older AF than the D7100's) wins. They also compare buffer depth, which the 70D wins. (D7100 wins it's share of contests too--not all one sided and a very good review).

Take that analogy forward to Sony A77II to Canon 7D2, we are comparing a camera with 79 AF points, _*of which only 15 are cross type*_ to one with 65 *all cross type AF points.  *. On the face of it, I don't see those as comparable. Not to say the Sony system will be bad--but I don't think it "wins" because 79 is more than 65! Not when it's also 15 vs 65! There's more than just the total number of AF points to consider. 

Moreover, we don't know how their AF systems will compare yet. We don't even know if the 7D2 specs we have are correct yet! And once we do, that STILL won't tell us how they compare until someone takes them out neck and neck. We don't even know if the A77 sensor will really be "better." All we can say is that the current fps shows an advantage to the A77, compared to this published spec, but we don't know anything about buffer comparisons (needed to USE that fast fps) or how their AF systems will actually _work _ in the field. 

In essence, I think the 7D2 will probably deliver an outstanding action camera. But I don't know that yet...and neither does anyone else! 8)


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 23, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


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



Could be, but those are DIGIC 5+ chips.


----------



## jrista (Aug 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Photographic DR is less, usually quite considerably less (by many stops). The problem with Photographic DR is it tries to be perceptual in nature....however it is rather arbitrary. The offset by a certain SNR, but there are rarely any specific rules about how that SNR offset is chosen. I used to prefer Photography DR until I couldn't find a consistent means of computing it. I also learned, after reading sensor design patents from half a dozen companies or so, that computing DR to the literal noise floor seems to be the way most companies compute DR:


```
20*log(FWC/RN)
```

Values are usually in electrons (e-). To convert dynamic range in decibels to stops, you simply divide by six. I have found that formula to be very simple and convenient, and it is easily comparable with manufacturers numbers, since they use the same formula.


----------



## jrista (Aug 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



The 1D X has three DIGIC chips. It has Dual DIGIC5+ that drive the sensor, 8 channels per DIGIC5+, for a total of 16 readout/ADC channels. The third DIGIC is a DIGIC 4, which is exclusively used by the AF and metering system.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Details about the sensor are lacking. Great marketing buzz terms but does the sensor have significantly better DR (vs 70D and 5DM3).
> ...



Except that the 7D has 11 stops of DR, not 13 stops. 
The D7100 and the Exmor sensors have 13 stops of DR.

Canon is still stuck at 11, as they use off-sensor A/D conversion (unlike the Exmors).
The hope was that the 7DII would be the first camera with on-sensor ADC - but this seems unlikely at this time.

Well, all we have is a rumor at this time.
Still, the fact that a 20mp sensor is rumored (as on the 70D) doesn't bode well.
Most likely the same sensor will be used. Likely with some tweaks, of course, but nothing of significance.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2014)

It would funny, after all these pages and all this talk, if they announce a 5D4, new Rebel, an 80D and a 1DX2 in a couple weeks and no 7D2. ;D


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 23, 2014)

Steve said:


> pablo said:
> 
> 
> > No. They either pay extra for the wifi add-on that a lot of folk don't want, or they do it at half time / full time.
> ...



You missed the part where he said - "that a lot of folk don't want."


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


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



it doesn't seem subtle to me

and how exactly is it that a bye the eye DR rating gives a higher score than an engineering rating which goes deeper in the noise floor than some eyes would like?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2014)

gsealy said:


> I read the posts and I didn't see anything about clean HDMI out. My thinking is that it should be a standard feature on the newer Canons. At least it would give the user the ability to record at a higher quality if they want to do it.



clean HDMI out actually proved to do very little for the 5D3, most of the damage was done at a pre-compression stage it seems, only ML RAW which avoided whatever it is they do to mangle the image quality produced radically better image quality


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > "Photographic DR" would likely be less than DR measured this way, for a simple reason - we don't usually tolerate image detail that's near or at the noise floor.
> ...



Funny you mention Ansel Adams since I'd bet a lot of money that he'd be.... not on your side here.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 23, 2014)

Zv said:


> Does make you wonder though, if these end up being the final specs, why didn't they bang out a 7D replacement right after the 70D was announced? Why did we have to wait (still waiting) for a 2fps bump from the previous model and what seems like the exact same sensor from the 70D?



+1000



> But will it still be awesome in 5 years time?? ???



Nope. In fact, the notion that the 70D is the best that we'll see from Canon 
in the next 5 years in terms of 1.6x image quality is quite ... sobering.

I thought that they would do better.


----------



## dash2k8 (Aug 23, 2014)

I'm disappointed that the highest ISO setting is 51200. Yes, I'm a low-light geek. My work puts me in a lot of dim situations. Yes, I could use artificial lighting, but sometimes there's not enough manpower and/or time for that (the assistant is already doing audio). Right now I have a A7s and it's great. I was hoping that the 7D2 would, if not match, then at least have a huge increase in low-light capability. Judging from this rumored ISO spec, I'm guessing it's still more geared for sports and not about conquering dark caves (which I don't blame Canon for). If 51200 is the ceiling, then obviously Canon wasn't trying to push this area. The new sensor will help but I doubt the highest setting is going to be much useful (hope to be proven wrong).


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 23, 2014)

Steve said:


> pablo said:
> 
> 
> > Define prosumer? Quantify extra cost..
> ...



Maybe it's because what I shoot is vastly different than what you shoot - but - I would think some kind of bluetooth connection would be better all around than built in wi-fi. I'm only chiming in here because you blanket the field of working professionals and state that it would be incredibly useful and why would anybody be opposed to those features? Well, I have a 6d and a 5d3. the wifi was a fun thing to play around with when i first got the 6d. I haven't even turned the wifi on in maybe 10 months or so, and that was only because I was on my honeymoon and thought ohh...maybe I'll post a few...couldn't though because the signal at the resort in jamaica kind of sucked! 

so i just am at a loss to see the uses of wi-fi for pro level functions - and if your working for a media outlet that demands on the spot reporting, my guess is they'd pay enough for the add on transmitter...


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> I'm not talking about DxO's reporting of DR, I'm talking about computing real well capacity and read noise from DxO's measurements. DxO's interpretation of their own data is pretty much total crap, and I never visit their site. But the raw measurements are useful if properly interpreted.



I don't disagree with this statement. The problem is that people go to their site and accept their DR and overall score values at face value.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> I used to prefer Photography DR until I couldn't find a consistent means of computing it.



Step wedge test.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

x-vision said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > The 70D is at 13 stops. There isn't room for "significantly better" DR with a 14-bit ADC.
> ...



Except that I was talking about the 7*0*D. It's a good guess that The 7D markII sensor will be at least as good as the most recent APS-C sensor from Canon.



> The D7100 and the Exmor sensors have 13 stops of DR.



13.3 to be precise.



> Canon is still stuck at 11,



EOS M 12.4 Total RAW
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-eos-m/canon-eos-mA5.HTM

70D 13 Total RAW
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-70d/canon-70dA5.HTM

Myths die hard, don't they.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 23, 2014)

yikes...16 pages....

rumored specs. I find this funny because 16 pages later ---- it's still just a rumor!

with that said, was not in the market for a crop camera before this rumor, and still am not after. I like FF. In terms of the specs I'd say this camera sounds like a beast of a sports and wildlife camera. Improved AF, newer better sensor (newish? Maybe, who knows...) - all things sports and wildlife folks will have lots of fun with. 

am I angry that this doesn't make me want one? Nope, not one bit. The 7d was never the go to cam for landscape work. not that it won't be able to do fine landscape shots, but the 7 series was about giving pro action grade features to a crop camera for less cost. These specs sound spot on

Of course, I bet this is just the first of many possible spec sheets we'll see floating around the interwebs. Maybe this is a tease and we're actually looking at a 24MP sensor with a totally new design. Or, maybe they considered going that route and ended up with a camera that was great but with a price tag of $2800 and came to the conclusion that the crop sensor market just wouldn't accept that kind of price for a crop camera. So they backed it down to a more conservative level which could retail in the $1700-1900....

bottom line is....nobody knows nothing about nothing right about now!!!


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> it doesn't seem subtle to me
> 
> and how exactly is it that a bye the eye DR rating gives a higher score than an engineering rating which goes deeper in the noise floor than some eyes would like?



For the nth time...DxO is not measuring photographic DR. They are measuring sensel SNR, running those values through a 'black box' formula, and predicting DR.

Understand that direct observation always trumps theory and prediction. Always. Never the other way around. No matter how much math, effort, belief, or faith you put in a theory, nor how many so called 'experts' trust in the theory, direct observation always wins.

DxO measures sensel SNR and concludes that a 70D (for example) only has 11.6 stops DR. Someone photographs a step wedge and sees 13 stops between black and white. The question is not "how exactly is it that a bye the eye DR rating gives a higher score than an engineering rating"? No, the question is "where did the engineering testing, model, or rating fail?"


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Funny you mention Ansel Adams since I'd bet a lot of money that he'd be.... not on your side here.



Come back when you've read some of his work.


----------



## expatinasia (Aug 23, 2014)

I am sorry, I do not have the energy to read all 16 pages!!

The specs sound nice and the 61 AF points all cross type gets me very excited if only because it makes me wonder what the future 1D X ii will have.

Does Servo AF for video shooting mean it will track subjects like the 60D or 6D does, where you can easily switch focussing points or maintain face focus even if subject moves?

Good it has a headphone jack.

Will it be APS-C?

Is the 10fps with the mirror locked up or its maximum standard speed?

Nice to be having new rumours but should they not be CR something, like CR1 or CR 2. If you confirm something later then just adjust the CR rating.


----------



## jrista (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


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



The differences are subtle to non-existent at ISO 400 and up. However, I have processed Exmor images (some of them from people on these very forums who were willing to share theirs), and there is no question that you do have considerably more editing latitude with an Exmor. A D800 allows more shadow lifting. Now, I can deband a 5D III image, and the differences drop...however, the D800 images still contain more detail and usually still have less noise in the shadows. Here is an example of a 5D III vs. a D800 from Fred Miranda's examples back when he first reviewed the 5D III and D800 (he was the first guy to clearly demonstrate with actual images the difference, and this was the first time I believed the D800's editing latitude advantage): 











The 5D III looks pretty bad, but strait out of the camera, that's the real difference. That is the *editing latitude difference* I'm always talking about. Now, things *don't *have to stay that bad. The D800 doesn't need anything done to it, it's fine as it is, but with a minute or two worth of debanding and denoising with a tool like Topaz (what I used in this case), you can close the gap considerably:






The D800 obviously maintains the detail lead, and it still has less noise, but the 5D III image doesn't look like crap anymore. I could probably reduce shadow noise even further, however if I did I would start eating away at even more detail, and at this level, it isn't "chew your hand off at the wrist" annoyingly bad. It's actually quite decent in the grand scheme of things...a considerable amount of DR has been recovered (maybe a stop or so, definitely not the full 2.2 stop difference between the two cameras.)


----------



## jrista (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I used to prefer Photography DR until I couldn't find a consistent means of computing it.
> ...



That only gets you raw data to work with. You still have to compute the actual dynamic range, engineering or photographic or whatever, FROM that image. Just saying "Oh, I shot a step wedge" doesn't tell you enough...you have to measure the noise levels in the darkest wedges (from the original RAW data itself), measure the white point (from the original RAW data itself), THEN COMPUTE dynamic range between the RMS noise level and the white point. Just shooting a step wedge and looking at the resulting image leaves you with a purely subjective interpretation of the result. Only when actually measuring the noise and actually calculating a real number for dynamic range do you end up with an objective result.


----------



## jrista (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



Your being rather misleading. This is what the article says:



> The Canon 70D's RAW file scored 1.1 f-stops more in total dynamic range (13 vs 11.9 f-stops) but the score at the highest quality level increased only 0.7 f-stops from 7.61 to 8.31, which isn't much of an improvement over the JPEG and below average these days. Like all recent Canon SLRs, the higher quality scores are somewhat below average for a modern sensor. For example, the Nikon D7100 managed 10.1 f-stops at the highest quality level, almost 2 stops better.



There is a difference between their _total dynamic range_ test, and the test at certain quality thresholds. I am not exactly certain how they do these tests or how they are calculating dynamic range, but they are pretty clear that when it comes down to QUALITY (and that's what were talking about here), the high quality test still shows that the Nikon cameras have a two stop advantage. I don't know if it is necessary to use the high quality state...they also have a Low, Medium, and Medium high state. Even at low, the 70D scored 11.7 stops, and at medium it was 10.8. Those numbers seem more in line with what other sites measure. 

As I just recently posted, the out-of-camera DR doesn't need to be where the story stops...you can always spend an extra couple of minutes applying noise reduction with a tool like Topaz DeNoise 5 to recover a lot of DR lost to Canon's noisy downstream components, and thanks to the fact that Canon uses a bias offset to set black level, rather than clipping to the black level, there is a LOT of detail and DR that can be recovered. The playing field, with effective NR, from a visual standpoint, isn't super terrible. But Exmor sensors still have an advantage. I did not need to apply any NR at all to the D800 example from Fred Miranda. It would be really nice to be able to skip that step with Canon cameras, too.


----------



## neogomo (Aug 23, 2014)

How long does Canon try to milk the old cow?

If these specs turn out right, it seems Canon doesn’t want or isn’t able to compete with Sony in the foreseeable future.

To exaggerate even a bit more, if I want a good APS-C-sized sensor camera, I use my Ricoh GR.

+ way smaller and lighter than a DSLR
+ way cheaper than a (Canon 70D/7D/7DII)
+ better Dynamic Range too.

– fixed lens
– good build quality, but not like a tank

Ok, to be fair, Canon DSLR’s also have their advantages, good at skin color and tonality, or the whole accessory-system, flashes, lenses, etc. but all this will fade away, if Canon isn’t able to up their specs, sensor-wise.

I was a long-time 5D II user, and EOS 10D, 30D, 40D before that ... so I don’t just want to bash on Canon, I really want to have them come back, but maybe their business still works too well for them – even without greater technical improvements – but that won’t last forever.


----------



## jrista (Aug 23, 2014)

Jaydeep said:


> This might be a stupid question, but can anyone explain to me what's the point of Dual Pixel AF when you don't have a touch screen ?



Continuous AF tracking when shooting video.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> 70D 13 Total RAW
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-70d/canon-70dA5.HTM
> 
> Myths die hard, don't they.



Well, here's what the IR says about dynamic range. 

_While it's *tempting* to evaluate dynamic range as the maximum number of tonal steps that can be discerned at all, that measure of dynamic range has very little relevance to real-world photography. What we care about as photographers is *how much detail we can pull out of the shadows* before image noise becomes too objectionable._

You seem to be of the tempted type . 

But what we care about as photographers is *how much detail we can pull out of the shadows*.
Not my words, btw.


----------



## jrista (Aug 23, 2014)

x-vision said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > 70D 13 Total RAW
> ...



Totally agree! That is probably the best definition of "Photographic DR" there is...the range between highlights and shadows that determines how much detail we can pull out of the shadows before noise becomes objectionable. 

The trick is adequately defining what "objectionable" is, so that we can have an objective means of defining PDR.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Myths die hard, don't they.



The IR method has a lot more variables and they don't test RAW they test after conversion RAW with cooked in NR of various who knows what degrees (and that also explains how they manage to get this type of DR to actually measure higher than engineering DR measurements of the RAW file). So I don't particularly see how this method is better.

Anyway it's also convenient that you don't post this little part: "Like all recent Canon SLRs, the higher quality scores [of the 70D] are somewhat below average for a modern sensor. For example, the Nikon D7100 managed 10.1 f-stops at the highest quality level, almost 2 stops better."


----------



## Alino (Aug 23, 2014)

OK, We can expect a 1700$ for this, no more!

And why the hell, they have wait 5 full years to produce just this upgrade?


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 23, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Funny you mention Ansel Adams since I'd bet a lot of money that he'd be.... not on your side here.


Nonsense - his _trademark look_ involved strong contrast, black blacks: he could easily have dug into the shadows more than he did, and very intentionally chose not to.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > it doesn't seem subtle to me
> ...



Actually I found out how. IR is measuring after raw conversion and NR has been applied!

And DxO is simply measuring it directly on the actual RAW no converter and any hidden difference applied under the hood.



> Understand that direct observation always trumps theory and prediction. Always. Never the other way around. No matter how much math, effort, belief, or faith you put in a theory, nor how many so called 'experts' trust in the theory, direct observation always wins.



Yeah and DxO is more direct, they measure the actual RAW file without having to deal with potentially different and hidden NR and sharpening and so on in ACR and how those aspects might vary from how it treats files from different cameras and where mid-tone gray is chosen and so on. The IR method is subject to a lot more potentially hidden aspects and variability.

And for all that, the funny this is that you don't even dare quote their main finding: "Like all recent Canon SLRs, the higher quality scores [of the 70D] are somewhat below average for a modern sensor. For example, the Nikon D7100 managed 10.1 f-stops at the highest quality level, almost 2 stops better."



> DxO measures sensel SNR and concludes that a 70D (for example) only has 11.6 stops DR. Someone photographs a step wedge and sees 13 stops between black and white. The question is not "how exactly is it that a bye the eye DR rating gives a higher score than an engineering rating"? No, the question is "where did the engineering testing, model, or rating fail?"



And ironically enough it turns out that the DxO measurement didn't fail and that there is an explanation for the IR result, ACR applies hidden NR even with NR turned off, under the hood and IR used ACR and didn't test the actual RAW file itself.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Funny you mention Ansel Adams since I'd bet a lot of money that he'd be.... not on your side here.
> ...



[instantly] I'm back.


----------



## jrista (Aug 23, 2014)

Alino said:


> OK, We can expect a 1700$ for this, no more!
> 
> And why the hell, they have wait 5 full years to produce just this upgrade?



It's a good upgrade in all but the sensor department. A 65pt all-cross-type AF sensor and 10fps in an APS-C is a first. As far as an action/wildlife APS-C body, it is specced well enough. Most shooters will be using it at high ISO, so the low ISO DR doesn't really matter for this particular camera.

Many of us, however, were looking to the 7D II as a marker, an indicator of whether Canon had improved their sensor fabrication and design technology or not. The sensor sounds like a mildly improved 70D sensor, so it sounds likely they have not improved their core sensor tech. It doesn't really matter for this particular camera...however it is a concerning point for Canon's photography division at large. We STILL have the open question: When is Canon going to step up their game, improve their core sensor technology, and start competing on the same playing field as Exmor?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Funny you mention Ansel Adams since I'd bet a lot of money that he'd be.... not on your side here.
> ...



He spent of time in the lab trying to improve what he could get out of film and did all sorts of dodging and burning and loved trying to push the tech of the day forward as much as he could.


----------



## jrista (Aug 23, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



True, however that does not change the fact that in practice, his images had VERY high contrast, and his blacks were often very deep and blocked. That was his style, his signature. If Ansel had today's technology, he wouldn't be using tons of DR...he'd be using strongly-shouldered tone curves to stretch the midtones and compress the highlights and shadows.


----------



## that1guyy (Aug 23, 2014)

Same sensor.

No wifi or gps

No touch screen

No 4k video or any notable improvements in video

This camera could've come out in 2008. 

What a terrible disappointment and further evidence of Canon's incompetence and lack of vision. I hope they go bankrupt if all of this is true.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Aug 23, 2014)

I guess that I now probably know the reason why Dr. Michael Adams chose to be a pilot and physician, and retired as major general, instead of photographer LOL...


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 23, 2014)

> If this turns out to be the same old sensor technology, good luck to Canon, because all other manufacturers aren't setting on their asses or resting on their laurels...




what some people don´t realize is, that the majority of customers does not seem to care about who has the best sensor or how much you can push the shadows.

only the minority of geeks on forums like this care about sensor performance.
there are millions of canon users out there.. how many member has this forum?

otherwise you can´t explain the business numbers of sony, nikon and canon.

http://petapixel.com/2014/05/18/nikons-financial-woes-relentless-prompt-restructuring/

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/08/09/nikon-cuts-yearly-forecasts-after-reporting-lower-sales-and-income-in-first-quarter.aspx/

canons camera sector suffers from the market situation too.
but for nikon it really looks bad. despite all the geek world praises their better sony sensors.

and i bet the 7D MK2 even when it comes with a dissapointing sensor.. will not change that. it will sell well compared to the competition.

from the eight 7D owners i know only 2 use RAW. all other shoot JPG.
and they don´t care much about post processing.

they have jobs and don´t want to spend 80% of their free time on internet forums arguing about nonsense or editing images. 

i guess that´s the reality out there....


----------



## x-vision (Aug 23, 2014)

Alino said:


> OK, We can expect a 1700$ for this, no more!
> 
> And why the hell, they have wait 5 full years to produce just this upgrade?



Yup. But it's clear to me now that Canon just won't make a 1.6x camera that would challenge FF in term of image quality.

A 7DII with new sensor tech would have been too close to the 5DIII and 6D in image quality (or even better?).
I was hoping for just that - but it's obviously not happening.

In Canon's product hierarchy, FF is both more expensive and has better image quality than crop.
And this obviously remains unchanged for now.


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 23, 2014)

x-vision said:


> Alino said:
> 
> 
> > OK, We can expect a 1700$ for this, no more!
> ...



obvious?

how can you say that?
you know nothing about the new sensor, do you?

we think/guess it´s a pimped 70D sensor but that doesn´t mean it is.

you look at the MP number and think "meh.. 70D" --..but that it is "only" 20 MP does not mean it´s the same sensor.

all i want to say... there is still a few days of hope left.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2014)

dilbert said:


> 20.2MP “Fine Detail” CMOS Sensor (I want more information on this)
> 
> = No OLPF or anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor.



= Nope. The 70D and 5DIII are both described by Canon as having a 'fine detail CMOS sensor', both have an AA filter.


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > 20.2MP “Fine Detail” CMOS Sensor (I want more information on this)
> ...



did not know canon calls their sensors "fine detail CMOS sensors".

so it seems this part of the rumor does not indicate anything new.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2014)

x-vision said:


> In Canon's product hierarchy, FF ... has better image quality than crop.



Amazing how Canon's product hierarchy aligns so well with physics (or maybe the other way around?)...


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Amazing how Canon's product hierarchy aligns so well with physics (or maybe the other way around?)...



at least for the same state of sensor technology.

sensor size is important, no question.
but i read a lot from hasselblad owners who are very suprised and pleased by the D800 image quality in the studio. some write it comes very close to the 40MP MF backs.

http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/

if im not wrong the area difference (APS-C -> FF and FF -> MF as used by hasselblad) is nearly equal.

so i would not say that challenging canons current FF performance with new technology is impossible.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 23, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> obvious?
> 
> how can you say that?
> you know nothing about the new sensor, do you?



Well, the leaks that appear two weeks before announcement are usually 100% right. 
So, these latest specs are the real thing - trust me on that .

And then if it looks like a duck, you know it will quack like a duck too. 
You will see - trust me on that .


----------



## x-vision (Aug 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > In Canon's product hierarchy, FF ... has better image quality than crop.
> ...



Well, physics would have been 'challenged' at the transition period, when a smaller sensor has superior tech vs the larger - but old - sensor.

But Canon is not taking this risk.


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 23, 2014)

x-vision said:


> Lightmaster said:
> 
> 
> > obvious?
> ...



again... you don´t know anything beside the MP and that it will be DP from the sensor. 
so how can we talk about the image quality?

it COULD be that canon HAS improved sensor performce but decided to stick to 20 MP.

it´s still just guesswork.

not that i have great hopes... but still i have some. ;D


----------



## x-vision (Aug 23, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> it´s still just guesswork.



... but based on years of experience 8). 

No point to argue here, as it's really guesswork on my part.
But you will be disappointed if you expect better IQ than the 70D.
Like I said, trust me on that .


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 23, 2014)

x-vision said:


> Lightmaster said:
> 
> 
> > it´s still just guesswork.
> ...



i also think it is very likely that it will be a pimped 70D sensor, as i wrote on page 1 or 2. 

im only playing the advocatus diaboli here.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 23, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It would funny, after all these pages and all this talk, if they announce a 5D4, new Rebel, an 80D and a 1DX2 in a couple weeks and no 7D2. ;D


+1000


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 23, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > It would funny, after all these pages and all this talk, if they announce a 5D4, new Rebel, an 80D and a 1DX2 in a couple weeks and no 7D2. ;D
> ...



that´s as probable as that the gear heads here become photographer. ;D


----------



## whothafunk (Aug 23, 2014)

whothafunk said:


> *still a rumor, people. don't take it as if Canon itself listed these specs. *


so many people spewing their venom over something that is:

1 - NOT official announced
2 - a RUMOUR (this one is important)
3 - NOT tested and reviewed

people always commented "i want less MP for better ISO capabitilies" and blahblah, now that this rumor surprised everyone with "only" 20MP and not 24MP, it's not good. again.

the fact of the matter is, that newer CPU's always make some leap forward in regard of noise in High ISO shots. Digic6 should be no exception. what this rumour also reports, is:

- 10 FPS (same as 1D4)
- 65 AF point (BETTER than 1D4)
- Dual Digic6 (BETTER than 1D4)
- more MP (BETTER than 1D4)

but who cares about that. all you people see is that it supposedly has 20MP.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 23, 2014)

"Fine detail" is also used for the Rebel series. So it seems that we should expect no new sensor tech in the 7D II unless new info comes out. 

Still setting my hopes for the 5DIV.

BTW Interesting that the CR list does not mention the sensor size...


----------



## Diltiazem (Aug 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > 20.2MP “Fine Detail” CMOS Sensor (I want more information on this)
> ...


Don't know about 5DIII, but true for 70D. 70D manual says its sensor is 'fine-detail CMOs sensor'. Read the introduction.
http://a248.e.akamai.net/pix.crutchfield.com/Manuals/280/28070D135_DL.PDF


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 23, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> BTW Interesting that the CR list does not mention the sensor size...



That's because it goes without saying that any 7D replacement would have the same size sensor as a 7D.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Aug 23, 2014)

This camera screams "Mini 1DX". And if I was a sports shooter, I'd be very excited about it.

It's fast. Possibly only second to the 1DX in AF. Dual Digic 6. Excellent build quality.

I agree with the keeping shutter speeds above 10fps for premium cameras. That's a total marketing reason. As is the lack of built-in WiFi. The only reason for an SD slot is a WiFi card. And if you can fit an add-on WiFi card into the camera, it's about half the space and less to build it in. Again, it's a marketing reason. If you had dual CF, WiFi and 10fps+, it would seriously eat into 1DX sales....

If I were an aspiring sports photographer, I'd be very excited by this camera. And for sports photography, the absolute latest and greatest sensor shouldn't be highest on your list. Speed, AF THEN super colors. I've done plenty of action photography on my lowly 50D and as long as you have good glass and you have decent light, colors are fantastic.

For wildlife photography, I think the 'Fine Detail' bit was for you folks. The sensor might be tweaked a little to get a bit more detail in your images. 

If this camera is in the $2000 - $2500, I think it's going to sell extremely well for years to come.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> ISO 16000? When have they ever limited out at a place between 1 full stop increments from 100?



I didn't notice until now, but the original post has changed this to 12,800.


----------



## fragilesi (Aug 23, 2014)

whothafunk said:


> whothafunk said:
> 
> 
> > *still a rumor, people. don't take it as if Canon itself listed these specs. *
> ...



Well said.

I almost hope that the 7D2 does turn out to be just an iterative step from the 70D / 7D - and by the way those specs are anything but imho. If that did happen then all these people would presumably go over to Nikon and we could have some sensible discussions on here ;D.


----------



## RickWagoner (Aug 23, 2014)

The 7Dii Is the fanboys magic unicorn, this talk has started to grow rapidly four years ago and everyday after the legend grew and grew. The weirdest part are the fanboys, to them nothing competes to the almighty 7D and only the unicorn mark 2 can possibly best it, but even then it will have to be amazing! I remember when the 70D came out all the 7D fanboys ripped it on all the forums, yet the 70D had a newer sensor technology the fanboys demand from the mark ii. 

Sorry to tell you something we all are going to find out later. The 7Dii will be a 70D with a bumped up fps, focus points, buffer. The same body from the 5 year old 7D and less features than the 70D at a greater cost..esp when the 70D gets the soon to come price reduction and normal sale of $850-$950 body price. 

now when is the sale on 70D's coming!!


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> Your being rather misleading. This is what the article says:



I am not being misleading. IR does not specify what "highest quality" DR means, nor do they provide images to demonstrate. You and I both know the threshold is arbitrary and the result would be impacted by NR and processing (as you just demonstrated with the infamous D800 / 5D3 test above).



> I am not exactly certain how they do these tests or how they are calculating dynamic range,



They are photographing a step wedge and feeding it to Imatest. Preprocessing would change the result for "highest quality", but the total is pretty much the total. Again we're crossing the line from discussing DR to actually discussing shadow latitude.



> but they are pretty clear that when it comes down to QUALITY



Which they neither define in real world terms nor illustrate with real world samples, so it's pointless to debate.



> Even at low, the 70D scored 11.7 stops, and at medium it was 10.8. Those numbers seem more in line with what other sites measure.



What other sites? DPReview only does JPEG now, not ACR best, and DxO doesn't agree either way. (You can't cherry pick the "high" setting for Canon and the "low" setting for Nikon.)

I've worked with Canon, Nikon, and Sony RAWs and I can tell you with certainty that there is not a 2 stop difference in DR. They both fade to white and black at about the same points. What is different is how far you can push shadows due to noise vs. the work you want to put into the processing. Even with work if you push hard the final result is better with Exmor. But it doesn't matter nearly as often as Exmor fans pretend, especially in print (vs. pixel peeping).


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

x-vision said:


> Well, here's what the IR says about dynamic range.



I like that they use(d) Imatest and a step wedge. That yields an accurate, tamper resistant view of total DR. But I don't care what their opinion is on the definition of DR. The definition was solved before Ansel Adams!

Latitude...which is what you are actually talking about...is important to. But if it's as important to you as people pretend it is in online forums, then you are not exposing correctly, and quality will suffer even with Exmor. Exmor > Canon, but dealing with the scene (GND filter; HDR) will blow both away.

In practice if you are digging deeper then about 2...2.5 stops into shadows for detail then you are sacrificing tonality and micro contrast with any sensor. Canon can handle that about as well as Exmor just using the NR sliders in ACR.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Actually I found out how. IR is measuring after raw conversion and NR has been applied!



NR does not affect how many steps of gray appear between black and white on a step wedge or total DR. It WOULD affect tests against arbitrary noise thresholds for "quality DR."

BTW: they use default settings for ALL cameras.



> Yeah and DxO is more direct,



Black box formulas are not "direct."



> And ironically enough it turns out that the DxO measurement didn't fail and that there is an explanation for the IR result,



Try photographing a step wedge some time. Keep increasing NR until more black squares turn gray :


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 23, 2014)

My aren't we getting nasty!

Chill out people, relax... Don't make this a personal vendetta... We are talking about rumours, not something important..... It just isn't worth it!


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> The IR method has a lot more variables and they don't test RAW they test after conversion RAW with cooked in NR of various who knows what degrees



NR does not affect total DR. And they use ACR with default settings for ALL cameras.



> (and that also explains how they manage to get this type of DR to actually measure higher than engineering DR measurements of the RAW file).



If DxO was measuring what you think they are measuring then this would be impossible no matter what processing was performed.

Go take a long, hard look at jrista's processing of the infamous 5D3 vs. D800 online test. DxO claims that there is a 2.5 stop DR difference between these two cameras. If that were the case then that door and those tiles in the far back should be BLACK. No detail or image at all in those regions, just blocked up shadow.

Instead we see the same features that we see on the D800, just with a lot more color noise.

The color noise impacts our ability to push the shadows, or shadow latitude. But the DR is darn near the same. It certainly is *not* 2.5 stops less.

There is your direct, observational evidence that DxO is wrong.

Perhaps more importantly for someone buying a camera, the final result with NR shows just how small the difference ends up being in the real world. Yes, the D800 is better. Could you spot it on a 36" print? Probably, but it certainly would not ruin the print. 24"? Most people could not without being told to look for it up close. 12"? Nope.

How often do you shoot a scene intended for 36" prints yet blow the exposure so badly that you need to push shadows this hard?


----------



## AmselAdans (Aug 23, 2014)

Just a few thoughts:

With the 70D, Canon introduced a new sensor, which was quite revolutionary with its two photodiode layout.
Do you really, really believe, that they will produce an entirely, completely new sensor for the 7D after having included their new, in some terms ground-breaking, DPAF sensor in...let me count... exactly one body?

It would not make sense, I think. Thus, I expect the 7D to feature a sensor, which is at the core based at the new DPAF architecture, probably (or rather for sure) with improvements. Awaiting something other than a sensor based on the architecture of the 70D's sensor is unrealistic.

And just a comment on the Dual Digic 6 processors:
Canon wants to make a Mk II of the 7D. So what do you do? Do you plan a completely new camera from scratch? No, you look at the old thing and think about what to improve. One possibility is to employ the most recent imaging processor, the Digic 6. And why two? For what purposes? Well... the 7D also features a Dual Digic circuitry - the main reasong the 7D Mk II may have two Digic processors is that they based their design on the old 7D layout. No one brought this point up right now. I think Dual Digic 6 does not imply, that there is inevitably something great hiding behind the courtain. It's just a revised board of the 7D. For the 7D, they knew why they need two processors. And maybe for the same reasons (with improved throughput, performance) they again employ two Digics...


----------



## AmselAdans (Aug 23, 2014)

oh and my two cents about the ongoing DR debate here:

1) for me it appears to be mainly some swaggering by different sides about who knows most about signal processing or on-chip circuitry. My "blabla indicator" beeps all the time while reading these posts.
2) this debate has nothing to do with the actual discussing of 7D rumors
3) the whining about "I'm not able to get decent photos until the DR finally improves... :'( :'( :'(" sssh! If the professional photographers get to know about the horrific DR issue with canon cameras, they will move to Nikon or Sony! AAAH! (For some reaons, they still stick to Canon despite this horrible horrible low DR...). Go outside, take beautiful pictures, be happy. Don't ever waste a thought about DR. I presume limited DR is not the reason if your pictures look bad for 95% of your pictures...


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 23, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > Sure but a 20MP vs a 24MP is 10% difference on X and Y axis approximately. Are Canon that much behind the competition?
> ...



Erm, yes they are... the OP was complaining about a 2MP hike in comparison to the current 7D. Current APS-C is around 24MP and the difference is about 10% per axis (cf 20MP). I was indeed saying the same as you - there has to be a significant gap in MP before for you to notice. So 20 / 24MP gap, really not that much...


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 23, 2014)

AmselAdans said:


> Just a few thoughts:
> 
> With the 70D, Canon introduced a new sensor, which was quite revolutionary with its two photodiode layout.
> Do you really, really believe, that they will produce an entirely, completely new sensor for the 7D after having included their new, in some terms ground-breaking, DPAF sensor in...let me count... exactly one body?



They could use the same basic pixel design and use a different readout system like on-chip A-to-D's, one per column. That would provide the same shot noise but improved read noise. Or, maybe the DIGIC 6 has improved readout.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 23, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Does make you wonder though, if these end up being the final specs, why didn't they bang out a 7D replacement right after the 70D was announced? Why did we have to wait (still waiting) for a 2fps bump from the previous model and what seems like the exact same sensor from the 70D? There is nothing groundbreaking here, which is prob the reason a lot of people are feeling a bit peeved. It's the lowest end of what we expected. The bare minimum. Still, it'll more than likely be an awesome camera for sports and wildlife.
> ...



Isn't it all about investing your money wisely, especially after the global economic downturn?

Why are mobile phones killing compact cameras? Because you always have them and the quality is good enough for most people.

Canon need to differentiate and show the benefits of an slr - but investing huge amounts if the average punter does not have huge amounts of disposable income, nor appreciates the differences, is fairly silly.

It's about economics, not marketing, and if the analysts conclude Canon are doing it right in terms of keeping their revenues, then that's good for us.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 23, 2014)

pablo said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > pablo said:
> ...



I think a lot sports photographers are taking pictures and focusing on the sport. Big agencies have runners who grab the cards, while the photographer flips to the other card and continues. Transferring GB of data over wifi? I doubt this would be quicker for the qty that a Pro photographer shoots....


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 23, 2014)

Steve said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Resolution aside, I think the specs make sense. I find it hard to believe that some would be "meh" about a camera with 65 all cross-type AF system! That is huge!
> ...


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 23, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> > If this turns out to be the same old sensor technology, good luck to Canon, because all other manufacturers aren't setting on their asses or resting on their laurels...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 23, 2014)

RGomezPhotos said:


> This camera screams "Mini 1DX". And if I was a sports shooter, I'd be very excited about it.
> 
> It's fast. Possibly only second to the 1DX in AF. Dual Digic 6. Excellent build quality.
> 
> ...



It's going to be a mini 1DX with extra reach, but not as good high iso quality and not the same frame rate, otherwise it eats too much into the high end range. That for me is sound economics, not so much marketing.

I agree with you, this camera will sell, like the MK III. I think Canon understands it's target market far better than most of the people here...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2014)

Stu_bert said:


> I think Canon understands it's target market far better than most of the people here...



+1

The 7DII/X looks to be a mini-1D X in many respects. It'll have the best AF of any APS-C camera on the market. 65-pts will push AF point coverage almost to the sides of the frame. 10 fps. Dual cards. The iTR suggests a new RGB metering sensor. 

The minuscule number of forum DRones will whine and complain, and say they won't buy it (not that they intended to anyway, in most cases). Meanwhile, the camera will be very popular with buyers.


----------



## AmselAdans (Aug 23, 2014)

A high AF point count will not automatically lead to an even distribution across the frame. I once read a nice article about why it is not that easy to build an AF with focus points near the edges of the frame.
So one possibility is that the 65 focus points cover nearly the same area as e.g. on the 7D but in a higher density.


----------



## deleteme (Aug 23, 2014)

AmselAdans said:


> oh and my two cents about the ongoing DR debate here:
> 
> 1) for me it appears to be mainly some swaggering by different sides about who knows most about signal processing or on-chip circuitry. My "blabla indicator" beeps all the time while reading these posts.
> 2) this debate has nothing to do with the actual discussing of 7D rumors
> 3) the whining about "I'm not able to get decent photos until the DR finally improves... :'( :'( :'(" sssh! If the professional photographers get to know about the horrific DR issue with canon cameras, they will move to Nikon or Sony! AAAH! (For some reaons, they still stick to Canon despite this horrible horrible low DR...). Go outside, take beautiful pictures, be happy. Don't ever waste a thought about DR. I presume limited DR is not the reason if your pictures look bad for 95% of your pictures...




Hahaha!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2014)

AmselAdans said:


> A high AF point count will not automatically lead to an even distribution across the frame. I once read a nice article about why it is not that easy to build an AF with focus points near the edges of the frame.
> So one possibility is that the 65 focus points cover nearly the same area as e.g. on the 7D but in a higher density.



The limitation is mainly in the vertical dimension. I expect the 65 points means a much wider spread (more columns) without much increase in the vertical spread.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 23, 2014)

AmselAdans said:


> oh and my two cents about the ongoing DR debate here:
> 
> 1) for me it appears to be mainly some swaggering by different sides about who knows most about signal processing or on-chip circuitry. My "blabla indicator" beeps all the time while reading these posts.
> 2) this debate has nothing to do with the actual discussing of 7D rumors
> 3) the whining about "I'm not able to get decent photos until the DR finally improves... :'( :'( :'(" sssh! If the professional photographers get to know about the horrific DR issue with canon cameras, they will move to Nikon or Sony! AAAH! (For some reaons, they still stick to Canon despite this horrible horrible low DR...). Go outside, take beautiful pictures, be happy. Don't ever waste a thought about DR. I presume limited DR is not the reason if your pictures look bad for 95% of your pictures...



DR is a huge problem for me, but not at base ISO. Given the choice between getting 15 stops of DR at base ISO and getting 11 stops at ISO 6400, I'd take the later in a heartbeat.


----------



## AmselAdans (Aug 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> AmselAdans said:
> 
> 
> > A high AF point count will not automatically lead to an even distribution across the frame. I once read a nice article about why it is not that easy to build an AF with focus points near the edges of the frame.
> ...



Ah I found the article I mentioned:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/Canon-EOS-DSLR-Autofocus-Explained.aspx (Scroll down to section "AF Point Coverage")
worth a read.
Hence, I do not expect the AF points to cover a significantly larger area than predecessing AF systems such as the one of the 7D.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2014)

AmselAdans said:


> Hence, I do not expect the AF points to cover a significantly larger area than predecessing AF systems such as the one of the 7D.



The secondary mirror limitation applies to the vertical dimension, not the horizontal. The vignetting and distortion limitations allow a wider expansion from current width, and the temperature limitation is about overall size, even a larger AF sensor for APS-C is smaller than a FF AF sensor. 

I think you'll find that the 65-pt array is noticeably wider.


----------



## AmselAdans (Aug 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> AmselAdans said:
> 
> 
> > Hence, I do not expect the AF points to cover a significantly larger area than predecessing AF systems such as the one of the 7D.
> ...



I'm the last to complain if you remain correct


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 23, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding the sensor...very disappointing. Sounds like a re-purposed 70D sensor with a DPAF improvement. I was REALLY, REALLY hoping Canon would really show something impressive on the sensor front with the 7D II. If the camera really does hit the streets with a 20mp sensor, I fully expect it to have the same DR limitations as all of Canon's previous sensors. Extremely disappointing. :'( Guess we'll have to wait for the 5D IV to see if Canon can actually step up their sensor IQ game or not...which is just...so far down the road...Bleh.
> ...



I'm curious about these video specs- seems like something's missing. 

If Canon really does not include 4K or 1080p RAW this camera is DOA for me. Any 7DII will have to have something really spectacular in order for me to buy it in addition to my 5DIII. 

4K or RAW or both, please Canon. Don't you understand how many cameras you could sell?

But of course, I'm just among those lowly 10% of video buyers (which is a statistic that could be doubled or tripled quite easily if 4K was included


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2014)

transpo1 said:


> Don't you understand how many cameras you could sell?



I'm sure they understand that quite well. I'm not sure why so many people seem to think they know more than Canon...


----------



## springle (Aug 23, 2014)

Too many replies for me to browse through. I just registered in order to comment.

Very simple: If these are truly the Specs, then this camera should have been released 2 years ago. Why the secrecy for such Specs?

Nowadays I shoot mostly birds and use ONLY the centre focusing point. My main upgrade requirement would be for more pixels to define the tiny subjects. Second upgrade requirement would be faster focusing speed. Subjects are extremely flighty.

I broke my 7D to unrepairable condition and ignored the service department's offer to allow me to purchase a replacement body for a price greater than local stores were charging. Instead I purchased a 70D and it gives me more pixels on the subjects and focuses faster than the 7D. One feature I would like is GPS. If there isn't a built-in GPS, then I shall not purchase an add-on, but instead do a time-synch to a portable GPS and use Lightroom's feature to add GPS data to Exif data.

A camera with these Specs just is insufficient to bother with an "upgrade". Very disappointing. I may pick up a Nikon 7100 and obtain lens conversions for the long lens.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > I think Canon understands it's target market far better than most of the people here...
> ...



+1+1

Whenever Canon (or Nikon) comes out with a new camera, I enjoy trying to reverse-engineer their market research. 

It was clear from the 5DIII that they had done excellent research on what wedding and event photographers wanted and hit the bulls eye (while still offering a camera that would be great all-around for other serious users).

I wondered what their market research showed about the 7D. I figured that it would be targeted at sports, birders and wildlife shooters. But I really thought they would up the pixel count significantly and sacrifice higher ISOs, in part to protect the full frame line.

What's interesting to me with these rumors (and I am fully aware that they are rumors) is that Canon appears to have decided to try to reach a balance between resolution and ISO performance, possibly deciding that a 24 mp sensor was just too noisy at modestly high ISOs (Which, by the way, is also very evident in reviews of Nikon and Sony 24mp APS-C sensors, despite what some people on this forum think.)

People love to talk about Canon "crippling" one camera to protect another more expensive model. That's almost always B.S. and it appears it might be the case here as well. By holding the resolution down to 20 mp, they may be trying to keep the noise level manageable at higher, but reasonable ISOs, like 1600, 3200 and even 6400. Even though there may be some risk that potential 6D or even 5D buyers would go for the 7DII.

These specs show a company that knows what their target audience wants and I suspect it will sell very well when it's released. At a minimum, it will certainly outsell the Nikon D400.


----------



## Zv (Aug 23, 2014)

Are there really that many indie movie makers that are shooting in 4K nowadays or is this just all baloney? Who here has a 4K monitor or software that can edit 4K video? I have yet to actually watch something in 4K. So why is it all of a sudden we need this in a camera that is primarily designed to shoot sports and wildlife pictures? 

We all know that ML will squeeze 4K out of it anyway, so chill out with the 4K already.


----------



## Maui5150 (Aug 23, 2014)

If these specs are close, it is a bit disappointing. If they were going to stay right around 20MB, I would want higher ISO. If they are keeping this size, there needs to be a significant improvement in DR.

The 65 AF could be nice. Will be interesting to see the spread and how well it functions. Was really hoping for 24MP+ and closer to 30.


----------



## crashpc (Aug 23, 2014)

Zv said:


> Are there really that many indie movie makers that are shooting in 4K nowadays or is this just all baloney? Who here has a 4K monitor or software that can edit 4K video? I have yet to actually watch something in 4K. So why is it all of a sudden we need this in a camera that is primarily designed to shoot sports and wildlife pictures?
> 
> We all know that ML will squeeze 4K out of it anyway, so chill out with the 4K already.



Totally agree. 1080p @ 60Hz is good enaugh for 99% of needs. But so is 20Mpx sensor. I´d rather want to have 64Mpx one (here we really have no need for AA filter) with choice to merge four pixels into one to have 16Mpx low noise image. Also two by two pixels could work for DPAF. I will keep dreaming. Seems I will do for two more weeks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2014)

springle said:


> Very simple: If these are truly the Specs, then this camera should have been released 2 years ago.



Very simple: The 7D was still selling quite well, until the 70D launched. 




springle said:


> Very disappointing. I may pick up a Nikon 7100 and obtain lens conversions for the long lens.



Again: H and G.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 23, 2014)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Stu_bert said:
> ...



Agree with unfocused. 7D II rumor specs seem to target outdoor shooters. 

I can see Speed and acuracy:
•Dual Pixel CMOS AF
•Dual DIGIC 6 Processors
•65 AF points “All Cross-type”. Dual cross on the center point.
•10fps

You can only put so much marbles in small bucket.


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you understand how many cameras you could sell?
> ...



Neuro: respect your Canon input a great deal.

As a loyal Canon customer, I know that they must have great data on the video market. 

My frustration lies with them holding back on video features that competitors are releasing in similarly priced camera bodies.

There are two parts to my frustration-

1) I want a Canon camera with 4K, not a Sony or Panasonic, because Canon makes better stuff.

2) They could sell a TON of 7DII cameras on volume if they added those features and make up any loss of $$ on their Cinema EOS line from that.

So, my hunch is that the only reasons they refuse to do it is for the reason we've suspected all along- to protect and save face with their pro video line- not a good enough reason to prevent release of a great product that would fly off shelves in my opinion (such as a 7DII with 4K or RAW).

Pro video people are going to be buying GH4s and A7Ss or perhaps Blackmagics as backup cameras when they could be buying 7DIIs. 

In other words, Canon's not capitalizing on their market lead in DSLR video and not following the Apple rule: cannibalize yourself before someone else does it to you. 



Zv said:


> Are there really that many indie movie makers that are shooting in 4K nowadays or is this just all baloney? Who here has a 4K monitor or software that can edit 4K video? I have yet to actually watch something in 4K. So why is it all of a sudden we need this in a camera that is primarily designed to shoot sports and wildlife pictures?
> 
> We all know that ML will squeeze 4K out of it anyway, so chill out with the 4K already.



An explanation: for film / video makers, having 4K is more about future proofing when 4K hits big and increased resolution in 1080p, not about playback for normal videos. It's like taking a small JPEG and using it for quick web distribution but wanting to have the .CR2 file for later use in case you want to blow it up for print.

That said, I'd be happy with a RAW 1080p feature in place of 4K because it would offer increased dynamic range. 

But I don't want a Magic Lantern solution- I want a stable, well thought out Canon solution for 4K and / or RAW because it's more reliable and because I own enough Canon glass and bodies that I **care** about the company's future


----------



## Zv (Aug 23, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> If these specs are close, it is a bit disappointing. If they were going to stay right around 20MB, I would want higher ISO. If they are keeping this size, there needs to be a significant improvement in DR.
> 
> The 65 AF could be nice. Will be interesting to see the spread and how well it functions. Was really hoping for 24MP+ and closer to 30.



My calculations could be way off here but I think that going from a 20MP sensor to 30MP would mean doubling the file size. The file size would be about 50Mb (I could be wrong) in which case it would require a much larger buffer. It would be tough to achieve 10 fps with that large a file and CF cards aren't fast enough to clear that huge backlog quickly enough. This camera is built for speed so choking it up with huge files is counter-intuitive IMO.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 23, 2014)

springle said:


> Too many replies for me to browse through. I just registered in order to comment.
> 
> Very simple: If these are truly the Specs, then this camera should have been released 2 years ago. Why the secrecy for such Specs?
> 
> ...



Best wishes... :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2014)

transpo1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > transpo1 said:
> ...



I understand your frustration. The real issue is that Canon's goal (legal mandate as a public company, actually) is to attempt to maximize shareholder value. Decisions made to maximize profit in the short- and long term are almost guaranteed to not make all customers happy. 

4K isn't mainstream, yet. It will be at some point, and that's when we'll see it in consumer-level Canon dSLRs. They will be quite happy to sell you a future iteration of the 7-series at that time.


----------



## Steve (Aug 23, 2014)

Stu_bert said:


> I think a lot sports photographers are taking pictures and focusing on the sport. Big agencies have runners who grab the cards, while the photographer flips to the other card and continues. Transferring GB of data over wifi? I doubt this would be quicker for the qty that a Pro photographer shoots....



That may be true for the few at the upper end of the profession but the pros I've met are paid garbage and often do it as a second job or as part of other journalistic duties. They certainly don't have assistants at beck and call. Transferring an entire card's worth of data? Probably not a good idea, no, but that one rad shot/series of that amazing play? Sure, preview shot->upload to editing desk->publish->done. That would be amazing and in this day and age its gonna start being a lot more common. 

My question, that I've asked others and still haven't got an answer to, is why should wifi be _specifically excluded?_ It would cost nothing to the end user and it would have use to some percentage of photographers. In fact, a well implemented, fully integrated wifi would be a godsend for many. The opposition just sounds, to me, like curmudgeonly old men complaining about kids these days with their idroids and googlefaces. 



> It's going to be a mini 1DX with extra reach, but not as good high iso quality and not the same frame rate, otherwise it eats too much into the high end range. That for me is sound economics, not so much marketing.



e: I keep seeing people say that they understand Canon purposely limiting the burst rate because of marketing. So, another question: who here that owns a 1DX would sell it off for a 7DII, spec'd as listed, if it shot 12fps and pocket the extra cash? Who here would purchase a 7DII, spec'd as listed, that shot 12fps over a 1DX if money were not the limiting factor? I sure as heck wouldn't!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2014)

Steve said:


> My question, that I've asked others and still haven't got an answer to, is why should wifi be _specifically excluded?_ *It would cost nothing to the end user* and it would have use to some percentage of photographers.



See, you answered your own question.  Canon would rather _make a profit_ on an accessory product (a highly overpriced one, at that).


----------



## Steve (Aug 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> See, you answered your own question.  Canon would rather _make a profit_ on an accessory product (a highly overpriced one, at that).



Trust me, I get that this is the reason _Canon_ isn't including it as a feature, I just don't understand posters here being against it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2014)

Steve said:


> ... I just don't understand posters here being against it.



Ahh, ok. I don't get that, either.


----------



## jrista (Aug 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > ... I just don't understand posters here being against it.
> ...



They are against it because they know it wouldn't cost Canon anything, they want the feature, most people are cheap, therefor..."Why the hell didn't Canon include WiFi?!?" That isn't hard to understand. Especially when the feature counts on competitors products keep increasing, at a faster rate than on Canon cameras. Especially when, outside of the AF system, the 7D II is looking like a relatively small upgrade from the 70D & 7D...which is rather pitiful after such a LOOOONG wait for it. 

It really isn't that hard to understand.  It's a basic facet of the human psyche...we want what we aren't getting, and we want it even more when the other guy has it.


----------



## Steve (Aug 23, 2014)

You misunderstand, we are saying the opposite. I was arguing with people who are against including Wifi in cameras for some reason.


----------



## jrista (Aug 23, 2014)

Steve said:


> You misunderstand, we are saying the opposite. I was arguing with people who are against including Wifi in cameras for some reason.



Oh. Well in that case, I agree...that's strange.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 23, 2014)

Other than the wifi, the features look great.
Particularly like the built-in RT function... damn, I want it...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 23, 2014)

The Wi-Fi on the 6D has been one of the most used features since Ive had it. I never used the camera remote any longer I use the iPhone app. via WI-FI to trigger the shutter release then NOTHING is touching the camera for landscape its perfect.


----------



## jrista (Aug 23, 2014)

In a follow up thread, CR stated they think the iTR metering and tacking system of the 1D X will be included in the 7D II. That, combined with a 65pt AF system and 10fps, and I think this really is a mini 1DX.

I'm still bummed that Canon has STILL not demonstrated they are getting competitive again on the sensor front...re-purposing the 70D sensor in the 7D II just smells really sloppy and cheap....the 7D II was the PERFECT camera to release a new sensor in, and I think this is the worst move, from a perceptual standpoint, given the competition out in the market, that they could have made. I don't think the 7D II is going to be a big "low ISO usage" camera, given it's specs...but I do think Canon should have demonstrated that they are still capable of competing on the sensor IQ front.

Maybe with the 5D IV, or if Canon introduces another line of cameras to replace the 1Ds line when they release a "big megapixel" camera...maybe then they will finally release a sensor fabricated on 180nm, with on-die ADC, better low ISO DR, maybe even multi-layered, etc. Still...it'll suck, if the 7D II really doesn't hit with a better sensor, to have to wait ANOTHER couple years to see if Canon is going to do something on the sensor front.


----------



## fragilesi (Aug 23, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Other than the wifi, the features look great.
> Particularly like the built-in RT function... damn, I want it...



I agree! For many a better focusing system would be a huge upgrade in of itself. We're already possibly talking about something that takes the best of the 7d and 70d and puts them into one package plus that focusing system. My guess is that for many of the actual target market that focusing improvement is actually worth much more than all the wifis, GPSs, touch screens, step of DR etc combined. Obviously . . . that's based on the assumption that it is a fairly large improvement!

And I'm not saying that the other stuff is trivial as camera functions go but give me the basics any time in any product over the bells and whistles!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Particularly like the built-in RT function... damn, I want it...



The more recent rumor update suggested that the -RT master would not be a feature, it'll be optical master only.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 23, 2014)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Stu_bert said:
> ...



+100

the grass is always greener. 

" By holding the resolution down to 20 mp, they may be trying to keep the noise level manageable at higher, but reasonable ISOs, like 1600, 3200 and even 6400. Even though there may be some risk that potential 6D or even 5D buyers would go for the 7DII." 

I think this depends on the actual cost of the 7d2, and yeah other factors too. when I stepped up from my xsi to a 7d, I was taking a good look at the 5d2 as well but ended up going with the 7d because it had a lesser cost (and because I was playign the field in terms of what I was shooting, kind of all over the place so the 7d was a good fit at the time). 

If the 7d comes in at under 2k, then canon may have to refresh that 6d (give it more cross points) because that is the body that will be in danger from a 7d2 under 2K. If it's 2k+ though, then it actually makes the upgrade path more clear. With the 6d at $1600, those who want to step up for things like portraits and weddings have a very valid budget option in the 6d. If you know you are shooting sports and wildlife, now you have your 7d2. And if your further along, then you have your 5 series. I really doubt those that not only want but need what the 5 series brings to the table will buy a 7d2 though, even if it is under 2k.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 23, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> If these specs are close, it is a bit disappointing. If they were going to stay right around 20MB, I would want higher ISO. If they are keeping this size, there needs to be a significant improvement in DR.
> 
> The 65 AF could be nice. Will be interesting to see the spread and how well it functions. Was really hoping for 24MP+ and closer to 30.



I think we've hit the point though where monumental gains in high ISO quality on a crop sensor just aren't happening, were looking at drawing blood from a stone here - as many would point out it's just the laws of physics here and larger FF sensors will be easier to get more ISO out than 1.6 crop. 

The 7 series is kind of the big compromise body - think about it. You could have the 1dx and a 600mm lens (no compromising - but pricey as all hell!!!!), but most don't have the $$$ to plunk down for that. So in comes the 7 series - high fps, and the 1.6 crop gives that extra reach - a 7 series body plus a 300mm + a 1.4 converter will get ya just overt he 600mm FOV, for far less than the cost of just the 600mm lens. Many here seem to want the quality of a $20,000 setup for less than $5000, and sorry, that just ain't happening!!!!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 23, 2014)

transpo1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > transpo1 said:
> ...



Or, maybe canon did target the 7 series towards sports and wildlife shooters. If the 7 series is targeted in such a manner, what would they have to take away from these proposed specs to give it 4k video? Or, how ginormous would the price tag be if it did? Would it need a third digic 6 in there to handle video output? Would they have had to back off on the AF for it? Or, if you look at the A7s, then would we see a 7d2 with a 12MP sensor? 

Again, these specs seem quite reasonable, add 4k in there and what happens to the price? Are people willing to pay 5d3 prices for a crop camera with 4k video.

And the bigger question is - why the heck would they do all that for a sports/wildlife stills camera????


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> They are against it because they know it wouldn't cost Canon anything, they want the feature, most people are cheap, therefor..."Why the hell didn't Canon include WiFi?!?"



It's really not a case of being cheap. Folks want GPS and Wi-Fi in the body for the same reason they want RF speedlite control in the body—for the people who use those features, in-body hardware means one less extra piece of hardware to have to carry around, one less set of batteries to go dead in the middle of the shoot, one less piece of equipment to independently malfunction....

With that said, it's a shame that Canon doesn't make their "N" version (no-radio) available more broadly, for the folks who don't want to pay a small marginal cost for hardware that they don't think they'll use.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 23, 2014)

We won't know anything until it gets here... here's my point
From CanonWatch.com today.....



"Another email from a good source. The rumor contradicts parts of the latest supposed spec list that surfaced a few days ago.

That’s what I have been told:

the EOS 7D replacement will feature a 24MP sensor (no mention if it is a new sensor tech, or not)
a new generation of Dual Pixel CMOS AF is implemented thru the sensor and via the increased CPU power of the EOS 7D replacement
the auto-focus system of the EOS 5D Mark III will be on board
GPS and WiFi will be on board
still not sure if it will be named “EOS 7D Mark II”
Thanks to the source, please send in more information if you can!"


----------



## lexptr (Aug 23, 2014)

If rumors are right – it looks like a natural update of 7D. I.e. nice improvements in various areas + dual pixel AF, which is a very welcome feature. But it feels like it is not enough today. I think it is the time, when Wi-Fi and GPS should be built in. I look around me and see all my electronics Wi-Fi connected except for some kitchen stuff (like fridge or toaster) and... my DSLR cameras! It still can be done using additional gear (same with GPS) but such solutions seem to me as odd in 2014, as a car with hand-starter. They did implemented built-in Wi-Fi on their latest releases (6D and 70D) and it will be strange to omit on 7Dmk2. Lack of GPS is less bothering to me, as I see it only as nice to have feature, but today we have it even in cheapest almost-smartphone devices, so big and expensive DSLR could offer it too (and iirc 6D does). Well I hope it is just a wrong rumor.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 23, 2014)

dilbert said:


> in other words, "fine detail CMOS sensor" is just marketing speak for ... nothing. It's like saying that a ripe lemon is yellow.


It's more like saying that a ripe lemon is Amarillo morning sunshine..... sounds much fancier than yellow


----------



## x-vision (Aug 23, 2014)

Zv said:


> Are there really that many indie movie makers that are shooting in 4K nowadays or is this just all baloney?



4K is the future-proof format. That's why it's important even now, when 4K TVs are still not the norm.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 23, 2014)

x-vision said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Are there really that many indie movie makers that are shooting in 4K nowadays or is this just all baloney?
> ...


+1

Ever shoot a picture and crop it? Same thing.... only with movies...

It also allows post processing image stabilization.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > in other words, "fine detail CMOS sensor" is just marketing speak for ... nothing. It's like saying that a ripe lemon is yellow.
> ...



The 1D X *does not* have a "fine detail CMOS sensor," apparently it just has a plebeian, run-of-the-mill detail CMOS sensor. 

Guess I'll have to sell that piece of refuse and get a 7DII/X...


----------



## drjlo (Aug 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> ...but I do think Canon should have demonstrated that they are still capable of competing on the sensor IQ front.
> 
> Still...it'll suck, if the 7D II really doesn't hit with a better sensor, to have to wait ANOTHER couple years to see if Canon is going to do something on the sensor front.



Hate to say it, but "couple years" may be being too optimistic seeing how Canon obvious does not read or care about Canon Rumors :'(


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 23, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



Stabilization is what I'm after with 4K. Oh, I do it t with full HD but if the output is full HD, the up sampling does noticeably soften the image.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I feel for you... I have a 60D that just has a plain sensor too.... That's why I have to upgrade to a "fine detail CMOS sensor"....


----------



## moreorless (Aug 23, 2014)

lexptr said:


> If rumors are right – it looks like a natural update of 7D. I.e. nice improvements in various areas + dual pixel AF, which is a very welcome feature. But it feels like it is not enough today. I think it is the time, when Wi-Fi and GPS should be built in. I look around me and see all my electronics Wi-Fi connected except for some kitchen stuff (like fridge or toaster) and... my DSLR cameras! It still can be done using additional gear (same with GPS) but such solutions seem to me as odd in 2014, as a car with hand-starter. They did implemented built-in Wi-Fi on their latest releases (6D and 70D) and it will be strange to omit on 7Dmk2. Lack of GPS is less bothering to me, as I see it only as nice to have feature, but today we have it even in cheapest almost-smartphone devices, so big and expensive DSLR could offer it too (and iirc 6D does). Well I hope it is just a wrong rumor.



If these specs are correct though this camera really isn't aimed at similar markets to the 6D and the 70D(or indeed even the original 7D) but rather pro's and specialised amateurs. In that respect I think that "eye catching" features are less important that bringing everything together in a package that suits sports/wildlife/action shooting.


----------



## lexptr (Aug 23, 2014)

moreorless said:


> lexptr said:
> 
> 
> > If rumors are right – it looks like a natural update of 7D. I.e. nice improvements in various areas + dual pixel AF, which is a very welcome feature. But it feels like it is not enough today. I think it is the time, when Wi-Fi and GPS should be built in. I look around me and see all my electronics Wi-Fi connected except for some kitchen stuff (like fridge or toaster) and... my DSLR cameras! It still can be done using additional gear (same with GPS) but such solutions seem to me as odd in 2014, as a car with hand-starter. They did implemented built-in Wi-Fi on their latest releases (6D and 70D) and it will be strange to omit on 7Dmk2. Lack of GPS is less bothering to me, as I see it only as nice to have feature, but today we have it even in cheapest almost-smartphone devices, so big and expensive DSLR could offer it too (and iirc 6D does). Well I hope it is just a wrong rumor.
> ...


Sorry, but I do not agree, that Wi-Fi is only an "eye catching" feature. Besides file transfer, it gives you remote live-view shooting, which could be useful for pro's and amateurs you've mentioned. At least for wildlife shooting I do see usages. But I agree about GPS - it is more "eye catching" or "nice to have" feature as I already said.


----------



## fragilesi (Aug 23, 2014)

lexptr said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > lexptr said:
> ...



Maybe you can "see" uses for Wifi but would any of those pros swap it for the better focusing system? No, it's a nice to have for most but it won't be high up on the list of much of the target audience.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 23, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> <SNIP>
> Maybe you can "see" uses for Wifi but would any of those pros swap it for the better focusing system? No, it's a nice to have for most but it won't be high up on the list of much of the target audience.


I am shooting with a four year old camera that is well used.... it is time for me to upgrade.
Given the choice between a 7D2 with a great AF system and no WiFi, or a 70D with a good AF system and WiFi, for me it is no decision.. the 7D2 with great AF wins..... but for bird photography (set it up beside favourite perch, by nest, by feeder) WiFi is a fantastic feature that I use a lot with my P/S camera.... I would really like to use it on a DSLR but it is not a deal breaker. I have an active 50 foot USB cable that allows me to do tethered shooting from a distance so I have a work-around....


----------



## Ruined (Aug 23, 2014)

I hope the 7D2 has interchangeable focus screen like 1DX & 6D.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 23, 2014)

lexptr said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > lexptr said:
> ...



sorry i think you're wrong. most pros already have the canon accessories for tethered control of the camera that work on the 5D Mark III, 1 series,etc.

and if you really need instant download of your jpgs to your phone for immediate upload - that's why you have an SD card slot and a CF card slot.

also for some reason canon has yet to put Wifi into a full mag alloy shell. only the partial alloy shells have received wifi.

this is supposed to be a no compromised rugged body - they aren't going to put plastic as part of the shell like the 6D and the 70D.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2014)

Ruined said:


> I hope the 7D2 has interchangeable focus screen like 1DX & 6D.



I suspect that it will.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> I'm still bummed that Canon has STILL not demonstrated they are getting competitive again on the sensor front...re-purposing the 70D sensor in the 7D II just smells really sloppy and cheap....



The 70D sensor is competitive. So what would you like them to do?

Resolution? Better be north of 40 MP to see a real difference, and that's only for those of us who regularly make large prints of finely detailed subject matter (i.e. landscapes shot from a tripod at optimum apertures). Not even Sony can pull that off in APS-C right now and retain high ISO/DR.

Total DR? The 70D is 1/3 stop behind Exmor.

Shadow latitude (noise)? You yourself showed how ridiculously small the difference is when NR is intelligently applied. When I first saw a Canon v Exmor pushed shadow test I thought the tester was purposely lying because I had never seen noise that bad...because I never turn off default NR when pushing shadows hard. In fact I apply more! I routinely push shadows 2-3 stops even with the old, noisy, 7D sensor. The thing I run into pushing shadows is not noise, but a tonality/fine detail/microcontrast wall, and you hit the same wall on Sony.

High ISO? In the DPReview and IR studio comparisons the 70D looks pretty much the same as the D7100 (for example). I would shoot either to 6400 if need be.

Color? Canon seems to have nailed that one. Other people complain and profile their sensors to try and match Canon color.

The next major jumps are going to involve 16-bit designs, multilayer sensors, or some other technology twist. We are well into diminishing returns given the state of sensor fabrication right now.

The only thing "wrong" with Canon's sensors is they score poorly over at DxO relative to Exmor. So do Hasselblad medium format sensors! Only Hasselblad fans are sophisticated enough to know DxO is a joke. I doubt any of their users are silly enough to jump on a forum and say "If Hasselblad doesn't do something about these sensors I'm buying a D810!"

I hope Canon makes a major jump in the 7D2 sensor by applying NR in camera even to RAWs and therefore gaming DxO to get a higher score ;D


----------



## DominoDude (Aug 24, 2014)

Ruined said:


> I hope the 7D2 has interchangeable focus screen like 1DX & 6D.



I'm quite convinced that KatzEye (http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/) will have something cooking to fix it if it doesn't come that way out of the box.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Particularly like the built-in RT function... damn, I want it...
> ...



Oh, I don't really care about the 7D II.
All I want is a compact RT master built-in. Almost caved in and got the 90EX for $ 42 today, but remembered how crappy forum members had admitted it was, and how it's GN is worse than a pop up flash.
Maybe the 6D II will have an RT master? Or a 280EX-RT?


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 24, 2014)

springle said:


> Too many replies for me to browse through. I just registered in order to comment.
> 
> Very simple: If these are truly the Specs, then this camera should have been released 2 years ago. Why the secrecy for such Specs?
> 
> ...



I think the DPAF feature took a while to develop....


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 24, 2014)

Steve said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > I think a lot sports photographers are taking pictures and focusing on the sport. Big agencies have runners who grab the cards, while the photographer flips to the other card and continues. Transferring GB of data over wifi? I doubt this would be quicker for the qty that a Pro photographer shoots....
> ...



How many Pro's want a 2nd body when they do events? Heck, I'm not a pro, but I take 2 bodies everywhere I go. Now, if you can get a cheap variant which will do 90% of your Pro body, would you? What about if it only did 50%?

If you were looking into becoming a Pro, which would you buy? The MK II or the 1DX? And surely value for money is an important factor for most Pro's - whatever the invest they need to recoup, so money is rarely no object.

If you could afford a 60K Porsche, and then they bought out a better spec'd model for 30K, just how ecstatic would you be?

Sometime cannibalization of your high end kit works. Again, I'd like to think that Canon know their audience (1DX owners) better than we do, and therefore what their reaction would be like.

Back to the wifi - I've not seen the implementation in the 6D or other Canons personally but I thought the implementation was not so clever (in terms of the SW). Canon, Nikon and others are indeed poor when it comes to an integrated system and understanding the benefits of good workflow and expandability. Another reason why smartphones are so popular. And I don't think they should go away and do their own thing, i think integration into smartphones is easiest - be part of that ecosystem, allow simple transfer so the phone can edit and publish. I think trying to get your dSLR to log in with credentials to your blog or website, name it something, allow you to put some caption and then make it ready for publication is just too much right now. In fact I think that boat has gone. No, integrate with your phone, hence why maybe BT would be better in that respect.

Would I like wifi in every Canon body & GPS? Yes please. Until then I use a camranger and either Iphone gps logging or an external GPS. I previously used eye-fi for the same purpose.


@Jrista - you shoot with a 7D. You've shown that you can take good pictures with it. I get your frustration with Canon's release schedule. Who knows the exact reason. But as a complete solution, if you can get better elsewhere then you would have moved. Is a 70D sensor really that bad? Based on it's target market, I think the MK II will do well. Even with a tweaked 70D sensor.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 24, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> y.
> 
> High ISO? In the DPReview and IR studio comparisons the 70D looks pretty much the same as the D7100 (for example). I would shoot either to 6400 if need be.




I put the camera away at ISO 1250. And I own it.




> Color? Canon seems to have nailed that one. Other people complain and profile their sensors to try and match Canon color.



Big fan of Canon color.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 24, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > y.
> ...



I guess you would be putting any APS-C away then. Makes sense if you want 24-36" prints. Not so much if you're posting online or printing to 8x10.

The 7D could make a nice ISO 3200 8x10, with noise that looked like tight film grain from a low speed portrait film, as long as you nailed exposure.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 24, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...


ISO 12800 and 1/30th second at F2.8 on a 60D with a 100F2.8L. This was taken in a venue where flash was not allowed.... and before anyone jumps on me for not using a FF camera under such conditions, this was a test of the camera pushed to it's limits... and I had a 5D2 sitting on the table in front of me.

Processing was minimal.... white balance and top noise slider in Lightroom.

What is scary is that the Sony A7S can do this at ISO204,800!


----------



## jrista (Aug 24, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still bummed that Canon has STILL not demonstrated they are getting competitive again on the sensor front...re-purposing the 70D sensor in the 7D II just smells really sloppy and cheap....
> ...



Well, your just plain wrong about the DR. Your using IR's "total DR" number, which is irrelevant, as it doesn't take into account noise. This doesn't even refer to DXO's numbers (which are all based on the Print DR number that I loath)....across the board, whoever's measured DR on Canon sensors, from the noise floor to the FWC, regardless of whether they get 9.5 stops and 12 stops, or 11 stops and 13.2 stops, or 12 stops and 14.4 stops, it doesn't really matter. Even IR's results where they don't completely ignore noise even jive, and IR ALSO gets approximately a two-stop difference between Canon sensors and Exmors. 

You are correct that some careful NR can close the gap. Thing is, if you actually look at my sample images I recently posted, there is still a gap. And, it was extra work to do the NR on the 5D III image. The real kicker is the gap is growing. Other manufacturers are not sitting still. Today, were still capped at 14 stops. I don't think we'll be stuck with 14-bit ADC units for long...technology is moving far too fast for that. There are already some sensors in the astrophotography world that get anywhere from 97-150dB worth of dynamic range. That is 16.2 to 25 stops of dynamic range! Those astro cameras use...yup, Sony, Aptina, etc. sensors. 

It isn't just about DR either. As others have stated, 4k video recording is starting to become a more common feature among competitors, and the quality of that video is higher than you can get with a Canon. DIGIC 6 may change that, but at the moment, the video processing in competitors like the A7s or GH4 is superior, and the video quality is supreme. 

I've also been getting more and more into astrophotography equipment. I've purchased some equipment lately that uses sensors from Sony and Aptina. I'll be getting a high end CCD camera that uses a Kodak (now TrueSense Imaging, since Kodak went bankrupt) sensor. Every single sensor I'm encountering these days, even slightly older CCD sensors (which are pretty much just a matrix of CCDs with shift registers or global readout, but otherwise none of the additional processing that CMOS sensors have) that have been paired with newer supporting circuitry, is better than Canon's sensors. 

Some of these things are RADICALLY superior to what Canon has to offer. I have a QHY5L-II camera which uses an Aptina CMOS sensor. This thing has 74% Q.E. thanks to high grade silicon, it has exceptionally low dark current, and it has extremely low read noise. This sensor sees deeper into the universe than I thought possible. (And, annoyingly enough, Sony STILL has a better sensor than this one! Their new ICX line, the 674, 694, and 814, all have even lower dark current and 77% Q.E.!!  Freakin Sony...wherever there is a damn good sensor, they seem to have a better one...)

I've been reading every bit of sensor news that comes out lately. The sensor market keeps finding new niches. The latest one is the automative rear view sensor market. There are already some incredible innovations for that. Interestingly enough, the whole "Magic Lantern Dual ISO" thing? Other companies are now actually patenting designs for sensors that use a "dual-gain" technique for high speed, high dynamic range video supported directly in the hardware (for when your rear view is directly illuminated by the sun or something like that.) My QHY sensor? That sucker has 120dB worth of dynamic range. That is TWENTY FREAKIN STOPS!! The thing has a 20-bit readout mode to fully support that many stops as well.

A year ago, I wouldn't have said Canon was that far behind. I DID say Canon was not that far behind. But in the last year or so, things have really changed. Companies aren't just innovating and filing for patents. They are putting the technology those patents describe to use, very quickly. Canon's sensor technology is like a fossil compared to the technology that is just coming out now, and will be like fossilized bone fragments when the next generation of technology hits within the next year. 

So, the 70D? It doesn't sell because of it's sensor. It sells because of the other features. The 7D II will sell for the same reason...it's other features. Those other features, though...they aren't going to keep holding Canon up forever. At some point, Canon's sensor technology, if they don't do something about it within the next DSLR release or two, is going to be so radically behind the competition...and not just Sony, but every other sensor manufacturer out there...that it will be hard for anyone to ignore the difference. What happens when Sony drops a LITERAL 16-stop sensor on the market? What happens when they figure out how to extract 120dB (20 stops) worth of DR from Exmor III? What happens if Aptina decides to enter the larger form factor market, bringing all of their high dynamic range technology to those sensors as well? Omnivision and Si Onyx are out there with cameras that use black silicon that seem to have achieved nearly 100% Q.E. They can shoot high speed video in nothing but starlight and a thin crescent moon.

When you take in the whole "Big Picture" of the current CMOS Image Sensor market, Canon is a dinosaur. They may not be fossilized yet, but given all the technology I have now for astrophotography, and given all the technology that is invented or implemented in a product every single MONTH, it won't be long before Canon's sensor technology is completely and utterly irrelevant. (Assuming they continue to do absolutely nothing with it.) Layered sensors will only keep Canon afloat for so long if they don't get control of their noise problems. To get control of their noise problems, they are going to have to stop manufacturing ADCs they way they have been manufacturing ADCs for over a decade now...that either means doing something radically new with DIGIC, or better, do what everyone else is doing...move them onto the sensor. To move the ADCs onto the sensor, without having problems with thermal signatures or anything like that, they are going to need to have a die shrink, use smaller transistors just to get it all to fit without costing them too much wafer space, and preferably, use a more modern transistor design that supports lower power usage.

I do not believe Canon can produce a low noise layered sensor on a 500nm process. They would lose so much in terms of fill factor...SO much die space would have to be dedicated to pixel activate and readout logic, the photodiodes would end up extremely tiny.

Oh, and BTW, Hasselblad? They DID do something about their sensors. All of the medium format players did. They all use Sony 50mp Medium Format Exmor sensors, and they all have the same low ISO DR and high ISO noise quality (which is admittedly not any better than Canon's, but now MFD cameras are pushing ISO 6400, when most stopped at around ISO 800 at most before...some never even had selectable ISO, and just had ISO 80 or ISO 100) that every other Exmor sensor has. However, they also still have the total sensor area advantage (which is the sole reason they still performed well before despite not having more DR...when downsampled (i.e. Print DR), all those extra pixels packed into additional sensor area were a huge bonus...they counteracted, on a normalized basis, the weaknesses of their older sensors....the same weaknesses that Canon sensors STILL HAVE!)


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 24, 2014)

Stu_bert said:


> Back to the wifi - I've not seen the implementation in the 6D or other Canons personally but I thought the implementation was not so clever (in terms of the SW). Canon, Nikon and others are indeed poor when it comes to an integrated system and understanding the benefits of good workflow and expandability. Another reason why smartphones are so popular. And I don't think they should go away and do their own thing, i think integration into smartphones is easiest - be part of that ecosystem, allow simple transfer so the phone can edit and publish. I think trying to get your dSLR to log in with credentials to your blog or website, name it something, allow you to put some caption and then make it ready for publication is just too much right now. In fact I think that boat has gone. No, integrate with your phone, hence why maybe BT would be better in that respect.



Maybe Bluetooth LE. If you do full-power Bluetooth, you'll never be able to feasibly support it with iOS unless you use the iOS-specific MFI protocol, in which case you'll have headaches on Android.

Wi-Fi works moderately well for that, though. You just set the camera up as an AP, turn Wi-Fi on, run the appropriate app to copy pictures from the camera to your phone, shut the camera's Wi-Fi back off (so your networking works again), and do something with the pictures. Is it ideal? No. Does it work? Yes.


----------



## Zv (Aug 24, 2014)

I think I get the no WiFi thing from Canon's point of view -

"If you want WiFi in a FF body - buy the 6D
If you want WiFi in a crop body - buy the 70D"

Leave the top end bodies for specialized use (7D2, 5D3, 1DX). Works fine for the 1 series and 5 series, why not 7? 

Just a thought. I would love to see WiFi in everything, or bluetooth or NFC or something!


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> Well, your just plain wrong about the DR. Your using IR's "total DR" number, which is irrelevant,



It is the ONLY relevant number. The definition of DR is not up for debate.

How hard you can push shadows due to noise (i.e. grain) is LATITUDE.



> Even IR's results where they don't completely ignore noise even jive, and IR ALSO gets approximately a two-stop difference between Canon sensors and Exmors.



Guess what would happen if you fed Imatest or DxO the D800 and 5D3+NR file you posted? They would report nearly identical DR. But applying NR to the D800 will not reveal any more detail or bump its score the same, at least not with Imatest. (DxO thinks blacker blacks with no detail still = more DR, so maybe their score would go up. But it would also be useless.)

Picking an arbitrary noise/processing threshold and arguing about it is worthless for this very reason.



> You are correct that some careful NR can close the gap. Thing is, if you actually look at my sample images I recently posted, there is still a gap.



Yes. You might even spot it on a 36" print with the D800 print sitting next to it :



> And, it was extra work to do the NR on the 5D III image.



Usually the "extra work" involves moving sliders in ACR. I generally tailor my NR selections based on the image in front of me any way, regardless of sensor, unless it's base ISO and I won't be pushing shadows at all because they're all solid there.

If you don't want to do any work, then you probably aren't converting a RAW in the first place. For those people there are automatic 3 shot HDR modes.



> The real kicker is the gap is growing.



No it's not. It's about the same today as it was when the D7000 came out against the 7D. Both sensor series have improved over time by small increments.



> I don't think we'll be stuck with 14-bit ADC units for long...technology is moving far too fast for that.



Someone has to be able to fabricate a sensor that can produce useful bits >14 first. If someone does that at Photokina while Canon ships a 70D sensor variant, then Canon has a problem. But even Sony's 12 MP FF sensor isn't doing that yet so I kind of doubt it.



> As others have stated, 4k video recording is starting to become a more common feature among competitors, and the quality of that video is higher than you can get with a Canon.



I'll give you that one. As a stills guy I don't personally care, but Canon needs to start shipping 4k as well as some of the other features of ML.



> I've also been getting more and more into astrophotography equipment...Some of these things are RADICALLY superior to what Canon has to offer.



But these are also niche tools, are they not? In terms of general purpose cameras, I'll grant that a Sony Exmor is a better choice for astro, but it's not like you can't do good astro with a 5D2/3 or 6D. Flickr is full of those shots.



> That is TWENTY FREAKIN STOPS!! The thing has a 20-bit readout mode to fully support that many stops as well.



But we don't see that in any general purpose, high resolution ILC gear. So what's the trade off? If it doesn't arrive in our cameras for two years, and Canon does the same thing at the same time or shortly after Sony (for example), then they're not way behind. They would be way behind if Sony's current FF sensors had 20 stops.



> So, the 70D? It doesn't sell because of it's sensor.



The 70D has an excellent sensor that is competitive now. If Sony brings out a 20 stop ISO 25,600 APS-C monster tomorrow, that will change. But you're reading about all this new stuff that no one has yet in a general purpose ILC line. Which means there is a trade off...maybe as simple as fab yields...that everyone is experiencing.



> What happens when Sony drops a LITERAL 16-stop sensor on the market?



Canon will respond. Even if it means buying the sensor from Sony, if their market is threatened they will respond. But my guess is that 16-stop sensor is not coming as soon as you imagine, nor is Canon's that far behind. Plus, I see a lot of patents coming from Canon for RGB multilayer sensors. Foveon shot themselves in the foot by overstating the advantage, but the advantage is significant. Anyone else doing any R&D here?



> To get control of their noise problems, they are going to have to stop manufacturing ADCs they way they have been manufacturing ADCs for over a decade now...



When it affects their market share I'm sure they will. They're still #1, and the smart company pockets profits but has tech ready to go when they need it. I know that sucks when you want to see rapid innovation, but it's typical behavior. If you're the underdog you innovate wildly...and often lose money...trying to get at the top dog. If you're the top dog, you protect your position.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 24, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> It is the ONLY relevant number. The definition of DR is not up for debate.
> 
> How hard you can push shadows due to noise (i.e. grain) is LATITUDE.



Look, man, call it anything you want. Here's the deal, though: 

FF cameras have less noise than crop cameras. No one argues about that.
With ... ahem ... LATITUDE, it's the exact same thing: you have less noise in the shadows.

But in both cases, it's all about having less noise. 

And it's very silly to argue that with some extra noise reduction, things get equalized. No, they don't. 
By the same token, you can clean up an image from a crop camera and proclaim that crop is better than FF.
Would anyone take you seriously if you do that? 

So, why are you doing it for DR ??

Having more DR (what you call latitude) gives you images with cleaner shadows - just like a FF camera gives you cleaner images overall. 
And having cleaner shadows/images is a clear advantage. Why are you downplaying it? 
What you are doing is the same as downplaying the noise advantage of FF vs crop. 

It seems to me that you just can't accept that Canon, your home team, is not winning in this particular instance.


----------



## Zv (Aug 24, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



I know very little about video, sorry. That was why I was asking. OK I see the advantages now.


----------



## jrista (Aug 24, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Well, your just plain wrong about the DR. Your using IR's "total DR" number, which is irrelevant,
> ...



I'm debating your definition of DR. You cannot simply shut that down at will. Your definition is flat out wrong. Simple as that.  The debate is raised, the burden of proof is now on you to clearly demonstrate how Photographic DR is more appropriate or more accurate. (In my experience, "Photographic DR" is far more arbitrary, as everyone seems to define it or calculate it in a different way...there is no consistency, therefor it is near impossible to gauge it's accuracy or even relevance. Besides...the industry itself uses a different but consistent definition for dynamic range, one that is repeatable and consistent and comparable.)

Increased native dynamic range in the RAW file CAN ALLOW FOR increased editing latitude. It isn't guaranteed to, but it can. Specifically, an increase in dynamic range that is gained by reducing read noise can significantly increase editing latitude. A simple reduction in noise, however, say by an increase in Q.E., is not going to offer as much of an increase in editing latitude. 



dtaylor said:


> > Even IR's results where they don't completely ignore noise even jive, and IR ALSO gets approximately a two-stop difference between Canon sensors and Exmors.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not from what I understand about what IR is doing. They are feeding Imatest processed images...images that have had NR applied. Therefor, they are not actually calculating the real DR, they are calculating one potential amount of DR assuming a given amount of NR has been applied. 

Regarding the noise threshold, it is not arbitrary. It is very well defined: It's the read noise of the whole system. Every sensor has a given read noise, and that read noise is usually dependent on the ISO setting. At ISO 100, the Canon 1D X has 38e- RN, the 5D III has 35e-, the 7D has 8e-, the 70D has 13.5e- while the Nikon D4 has 18e-, the D800 has 3e-, the D810 has 4.5e-. These values are fixed. That's the read noise of those cameras at ISO 100. That is also the noise threshold for each of those cameras. Those cameras also have a saturation point or full well capacity at ISO 100: 1DX 90367e-, 5D III 67531e-, 7D 20187e-, 70D 26726e-, and the D4 has 117813e-, the D800 has 44972e-, the D810 has 49601e-. 

You compute DR the exact same way for every one of those cameras: 20*log(FWC/RN)/6. That formula results in the following DR for each camera:

1DX: 11.25
5DIII: 10.95
7D: 11.33
70D: 11
D4: 12.72
D800: 13.91
D810: 13.47

This isn't rocket science. It isn't arbitrary. This is what the INDUSTRY uses to compute dynamic range. Measured read noise values may vary slightly from documented read noise values, so DR numbers computed from measurements are usually going to deviate from DR numbers computed from official documentation for any given sensor...but overall, as you can see, Canon cameras over around 11 stops, Nikon cameras hover between 13-14 stops. There is nothing DXO-esque here....I'm not doing anything "extra", I'm not claiming that the hardware itself is capable of doing more than what it's really capable of because I chose some arbitrary downsampling point. This is simple, strait forward, industry standard dynamic range. 



dtaylor said:


> > You are correct that some careful NR can close the gap. Thing is, if you actually look at my sample images I recently posted, there is still a gap.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. You might even spot it on a 36" print with the D800 print sitting next to it :



Eh, what?



dtaylor said:


> > The real kicker is the gap is growing.
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. It's about the same today as it was when the D7000 came out against the 7D. Both sensor series have improved over time by small increments.



Again, your basing that on invalid information. Canon sensors have not changed since before the 7D. Nikon, Pentax, and a number of other cameras have changed dramatically over the same timeframe. Now, it was understandable that the 1D X and 5D III improved in other areas. Canon's customers asked them to improve in those areas. 

However it's been about two years now. Canon's customers have been demanding they improve in a different area, in the area of sensor IQ. If these 7D II specs are real, they herald an era of...no change for Canon sensor IQ. 



dtaylor said:


> > I don't think we'll be stuck with 14-bit ADC units for long...technology is moving far too fast for that.
> 
> 
> 
> Someone has to be able to fabricate a sensor that can produce useful bits >14 first. If someone does that at Photokina while Canon ships a 70D sensor variant, then Canon has a problem. But even Sony's 12 MP FF sensor isn't doing that yet so I kind of doubt it.



Sony's sensors are getting very close to the limits allowed by 14-bit ADC. If what their BionzX chip in the A7s can do is real, they are feeding a 16-bit image processing pipeline 14-bit data, and that 14-bit data has extremely low noise. If Sony continues to make progress at the same rate they have been (and, if they stop gimping their own technology with a wickedly crappy RAW image format), the will be capable of using 15-bits very soon. 



dtaylor said:


> > I've also been getting more and more into astrophotography equipment...Some of these things are RADICALLY superior to what Canon has to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> But these are also niche tools, are they not? In terms of general purpose cameras, I'll grant that a Sony Exmor is a better choice for astro, but it's not like you can't do good astro with a 5D2/3 or 6D. Flickr is full of those shots.



I use a 5D III for astro. In my experience, it's actually worse than the 7D. By a lot, really. The read noise on the 5D III is ~35e- ISO 100, whereas it is 8e- ISO 100 on the 7D. At ISO 400 (the ideal ISO setting for Canon cameras for astro), the 5D III still has 4.4e-, where as the 7D has about 3e-. Chroma noise on the 5D III is FAR worse than on the 7D. It is so bad that it actually makes it very difficult to get good results.

Now, the 6D is a different story. I don't know why Canon did not do with the 5D III whatever they did with the 6D, but the 6D has some of the lowest and cleanest high ISO noise I've ever seen. It's quickly becoming a popular astro modded DSLR for those not willing to spend $4-5k for a proper cooled CCD. 

The benefits of the 6D are still having to compete with Exmor based cameras, though. Those things have a flat read noise curve. It's ~3e- at every ISO setting. The 6D has a slight advantage at very high ISO, however you lose so much DR at those ISO settings that stars clip. Now that someone has cracked the Nikon/Sony black point clipping problem (which used to be the reason those cameras were called "star eaters"), Nikon cameras are rapidly growing in popularity as not only viable options for astro, but better options. They can be used at ISO 100 instead of ISO 400, which gives you even more headroom to avoid clipping stars, which gives you even more room within which to stretch and otherwise process the images.

When it comes to astrophotography in general, it's a booming hobby. Thousands more people are able to do it today than used to. Most are using modded Canon DSLRs, usually T3s and T3is, although newer models, including the 60D/Da, and now the 6D, are also often used. However the DSLR is only one part of the story. You still need to guide. The thousands of people who are now able to do astrophotography because equipment and software for it is cheaper and more accessible, they are buying guide cameras. Those include guide cameras that make use of Aptina and Sony sensors. Many of those beginners go on to use Atik CCD cameras, which are cheaper than the likes of SBIG, QSI, FLI. The most popular Atik cameras are the ones that use ultra high sensitivity Sony sensors. 

Planetary, lunar, and solar imagers are also picking up high speed video cameras, like my QHY5L-II, or similar cameras from ASI or Starlight Xpress. Planetary imaging is probably even more popular than DSO imaging, as it's easier to do, doesn't require as accurate of tracking, and can often be done when seeing is too terrible for DSO imaging because of the use of superresolution and lucky imaging in planetary/

It may have been an extremely niche market, however these days it is a growing market. A rapidly growing market. And who has a vice-like grip on that market? Canon? No. Actually, their grip on that market from the DSLR front is waning...again, because their sensors are no longer competitive. Sony and Aptina in particular have the best sensors on the market for astro right now. Nikon cameras with Exmors are becoming more popular, largely thanks to the recent work of Nikon hackers to remove the black point clipping. 

I've also had the opportunity to work with some stacked image data from people who use Nikon Exmor cameras and even Sony CCD cameras, who needed help with image processing. Their data was without question superior to my own that I gathered with the 5D III. My 7D data was about as good...however most of my 7D data was gathered when average outdoor temperatures were -8°C. 



dtaylor said:


> > That is TWENTY FREAKIN STOPS!! The thing has a 20-bit readout mode to fully support that many stops as well.
> 
> 
> 
> But we don't see that in any general purpose, high resolution ILC gear. So what's the trade off? If it doesn't arrive in our cameras for two years, and Canon does the same thing at the same time or shortly after Sony (for example), then they're not way behind. They would be way behind if Sony's current FF sensors had 20 stops.



If Sony released a sensor with 20 stops, I truly don't believe Canon would be competing. Not any time soon. It could be another thing like with the 7D...where it takes five years total for them to actually get something onto the market that can compete on the same level. I don't suspect Sony will release a 20-stop sensor. Not within the next couple of years. Not in a larger form factor anyway (they already have sensors that top 16 stops for the astro stuff.) However, I could see Sony kicking out a new Exmor II with on-die 16-bit CP-ADC very soon.



dtaylor said:


> > So, the 70D? It doesn't sell because of it's sensor.
> 
> 
> 
> The 70D has an excellent sensor that is competitive now. If Sony brings out a 20 stop ISO 25,600 APS-C monster tomorrow, that will change. But you're reading about all this new stuff that no one has yet in a general purpose ILC line. Which means there is a trade off...maybe as simple as fab yields...that everyone is experiencing.



Again, this boils down to your rather arbitrary definition of dynamic range. This is the definition of dynamic range that the entire market for sensors uses to compute dynamic range in decibels:


```
20*log(FWC/RN)
```

And to get stops:


```
(20*log(FWC/RN))/6
```

By this definition, Canon is behind by two stops of DR, or about 12dB.



dtaylor said:


> > What happens when Sony drops a LITERAL 16-stop sensor on the market?
> 
> 
> 
> Canon will respond. Even if it means buying the sensor from Sony, if their market is threatened they will respond. But my guess is that 16-stop sensor is not coming as soon as you imagine, nor is Canon's that far behind. Plus, I see a lot of patents coming from Canon for RGB multilayer sensors. Foveon shot themselves in the foot by overstating the advantage, but the advantage is significant. Anyone else doing any R&D here?



WILL THEY RESPOND? I mean, that's the question here. If these specs are true, and given the preliminaries last time around when they released the 1D X, 5D III, and 6D....I highly suspect they are...then Canon hasn't responded yet to the competition. And not just Sony. Toshiba is up there now as well, making APS-C sensors with nearly 13 stops of DR.

Regarding Canon patents. We've been seeing patents and prototypes out of Canon since before the 1D IV. I am pretty darn sure Canon already has a CP-ADC patent capable of reading 120mp out at 9.5fps. We've been seeing multi-layered sensor patents out of Canon for years. Those technologies haven't made their way into any cameras yet. Why? Well...if Canon is still using a 500nm process...that's why. They can't pack so much electronics into each pixel with transistors that large, and still have good noise quality. Their sensor fill factor has to be plummeting with the layered sensors (they say as much themselves in a couple of the older layered sensor patents, and one of them seems dedicated to improving sensitivity because photodiode area for each color is so small.) If Canon released a layered sensor in their next camera with a 500nm process, I highly doubt it would be as good as Foveon, let alone Exmor. 

Canon desperately needs a process shrink. 



dtaylor said:


> > To get control of their noise problems, they are going to have to stop manufacturing ADCs they way they have been manufacturing ADCs for over a decade now...
> 
> 
> 
> When it affects their market share I'm sure they will. They're still #1, and the smart company pockets profits but has tech ready to go when they need it. I know that sucks when you want to see rapid innovation, but it's typical behavior. If you're the underdog you innovate wildly...and often lose money...trying to get at the top dog. If you're the top dog, you protect your position.



Sure, they are still #1...at the moment. But that's also what worries me. How many companies that were #1 throughout the last three decades or so, who just sat and rode the waves of their past success without competing head-to-head with their rivals in a highly competitive market...are still around, or if they are around, are they still relevant in new modern markets? Kodak was king. Kodak was king for decades. Kodak even had a portfolio of patents for CCD and CMOS sensor technology....they just never implemented it. Kodak had to sell it's patent library, and they are a shadow of their former selves. They tried to ride the film wave too long, and sat on all their digital technology (or simply didn't know how to employ it properly.) Microsoft? They still dominate the desktop...but they are practically irrelevant in the new computing markets: Phones, Phablets, Tablets. Mobile computing. I still love Microsoft products, I think they are excellent...but it was too little too late. They now face a massive, steeply uphill, and extremely expensive battle to gain market share from the more agile and competitive companies that actually employed the technology in their patents. There are plenty of other technology companies that either stuck with failing technology and refused to switch to successful ones and died, did not innovate at all and died, or was too slow to respond to heavy competition and died. 

There are a lot of parallels that can be drawn between Canon and many of these companies. I'm not saying Canon IS these companies yet...just that there are a lot of similarities. From a competitive standpoint, Canon shouldn't just be working their past success to continue selling mildly improved camera models year after year. It's going to rapidly turn around and bite them in the proverbial rear end at some point...if they don't have a game changer already in the works when that happens, their #1 spot could instantly become #3, then #5, then #10. Sony is improving their game on other fronts as well. While the reviewer called it "new technology", it is pretty much the same thing as Canon's 61pt AF system, but Sony now has a high end, high density reticulated AF system that can compete head-to-head with Canon and Nikon AF systems. At some point, they are going to start pushing the frame rate envelope, and if they stick with electronic shutters (and better, global shutters), they could race right past Canon's 12/14fps (not that that is necessarily a good thing...there is a point of diminishing returns there, and possibly even negative returns once you end up with far too many frames for a short one-two second burst...but still, it's another front of competition.)

The world isn't standing still. If Canon does stand still...


----------



## jrista (Aug 24, 2014)

Stu_bert said:


> @Jrista - you shoot with a 7D. You've shown that you can take good pictures with it. I get your frustration with Canon's release schedule. Who knows the exact reason. But as a complete solution, if you can get better elsewhere then you would have moved. Is a 70D sensor really that bad? Based on it's target market, I think the MK II will do well. Even with a tweaked 70D sensor.



I do shoot with a 7D. I also shoot with a 5D III. However...generally, *nearly all of my work is shot at high ISO*. At high ISO, the differences between any camera on the market with similar sensor sizes is trivial. The full frame definitely does better...not surprising, it gathers more total light for any given identically frames subject. The 7D suffers at really high ISO, it does pretty well between ISO 400 and 1600, and there have been times when It's done quite well at ISO 3200. The 5D III does excellent up through ISO 12800.

However, at ISO 100? Both of them still have banding problems. You have a few stops of editing latitude...and actually, a bit more with the 7D in my experience than with the 5D III. I can denoise them pretty effetively with Topaz DeNoise 5....the debanding works pretty well, although again...it seems to work better on the 7D. The 7D has a pretty strict 8-pixel wide banding, so all I have to do is set the band size to 8 in DeNoise 5, and 7D banding is usually cleaned right up. Now that I have a 5D III, I've found it is a lot more difficult to clean up. The banding seems more random, and it still often occurs in both horizontal and vertical. To fully clean up banding on an ISO 100 5D III image, I usually have to sacrifice some detail. I can get really good results for downsampled images. I'd say they rival D800 downsampled images, and I'm quite happy with that. Any print smaller than 13x19 (7D) or 16x20 (5D III) usually looks as good as any D800 image I've printed. However if I want to print my landscapes, and I like to print them really large...? Exmor wins. There is just no denying it. It's got cleaner noise that is very random. Detail is crisper in the deep shadows. There isn't a hint of any kind of noise artifact. 

I can take Canon files very far with Topaz Denoise. It's a wonderful tool. It can eat away at detail like a champ if you let it, so moderation is key. But when you really get down to it....Exmor is just better:

D800 (from Fred Miranda's review):






5D III (Topaz Denoise 5 w/ Debanding and DR Recovery):





5D III (Original shadow pull):





My DeNoised 5D III is just not as good. It's better...but still not as good. I used to be happy with that...but...I dunno. I no longer am. Maybe getting into astrophotography, and playing around with equipment that uses sensors from different manufacturers, seeing how much more sensitive they are and how much more dynamic range they have....maybe all that has changed my opinions. I just don't feel like sitting around anymore WAITING. I waited for years for Canon to release the 5D III. Even back then, I really hoped it would have a big DR increase. That was the age of the Nikon D7000 and the Pentax K-5, both of which had demonstrably better DR than Canon cameras. The K-5 was better than the D7000, it was a shadow-pulling powerhouse (still is today, even...it's SNR is still one of the best of the best.) I waited before the 5D III. I've been waiting since the 5D III. It looks like I'll be waiting after the 7D II.

As a Canon user...I wait. I WAIT. I WAIT and WAIT and WAIT. I even stopped waiting...I picked up a 5D III. It's better than my 7D at high ISO, no question. The 5D III is actually PHENOMENAL at high ISO....but, so is every other modern full frame camera, including the lowly 6D and the vaunted D800/810 and A7s. It's the bigger frame. But ISO 100? I was surprised to find that, from an editing latitude standpoint...my 7D does better. I do landscapes, I'll be using the 5D III for landscapes...but, it's worse than my 7D...  

So...I'm WAITING...*again*. _I'm so sick of waiting for Canon to do some thing about sensor IQ._  Really, really am. I know what's possible now. I know that DSLR sensors will eventually achieve SIGNIFICANTLY more than they do today. Having nearly 14 stops of DR is just the beginning...I have no doubt now that the day will come when I could put a DSLR with 20 stops of DR in my hands. I don't think it would be a Canon DSLR at this point, though....AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM! :


----------



## crashpc (Aug 24, 2014)

jrista: Who do you think will read your essay? :-D
We should talk about particular things and specific products, but when there is compression and even DENOISE applied right into RAW files (let´s say Fuji, and we know it´s many more brands and products now) how dare do you say that Canon processed image measurement is unfair? Your statements doesn´t seem to be valid to me. And there is even more...


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 24, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> ISO 12800 and 1/30th second at F2.8 on a 60D with a 100F2.8L. This was taken in a venue where flash was not allowed.... and before anyone jumps on me for not using a FF camera under such conditions, this was a test of the camera pushed to it's limits... and I had a 5D2 sitting on the table in front of me.
> 
> Processing was minimal.... white balance and top noise slider in Lightroom.
> 
> What is scary is that the Sony A7S can do this at ISO204,800!



I wouldn't be happy with this level of noise reduction. Looks too smoothed for my taste. 
Of course, I noticed it only when I opened the full sized image. Looks fine within the thread.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> I'm debating your definition of DR. You cannot simply shut that down at will.



Yes I can. It is not "my" definition. It is the definition that has been in use since Ansel Adams and Fred Archer developed the Zone System (at least). The first zone above black does not even have any texture or detail, just a tone lighter then black. And it is not dependent on grain/noise.



> Your definition is flat out wrong. Simple as that.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range - _Photographers use "dynamic range" for the luminance range of a scene being photographed, or the limits of luminance range that a given digital camera or film can capture, [32] or the opacity range of developed film images, or the reflectance range of images on photographic papers._

Luminance range. NOT detail that has "Sony Exmor" amount of noise or less.

Please also see: 

Basic Photographic Materials and Processes, Third Edition - chapters 2 and 5.

http://photo.net/learn/making-photographs/film

http://www.amazon.com/Negative-Ansel-Adams-Photography-Book/dp/0821221868

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System#Exposure_zones

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/zone_system.shtml

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dynamic-range.htm

http://www.stouffer.net/TransPage.htm

http://cameras.about.com/od/technologies/a/What-Is-Dynamic-Range.htm

Shall I go on?



> (In my experience, "Photographic DR" is far more arbitrary, as everyone seems to define it or calculate it in a different way...



The definition and method of calculation is taught to every single person who earns a degree in photography in the country. A very large number of printers and scientists know it as well. It is not arbitrary.



> Not from what I understand about what IR is doing. They are feeding Imatest processed images...images that have had NR applied.



I don't know how many times I have to say it: if you photograph a step wedge and apply NR or scale it down, black squares do not magically become gray. Total DR does not change with NR.



> You compute DR the exact same way for every one of those cameras: 20*log(FWC/RN)/6. That formula results in the following DR for each camera:
> 
> 1DX: 11.25
> 5DIII: 10.95
> ...



Shoot a transmission step wedge with a 70D, 5D3, or 1DX. (7D value actually looks about right.) When you see with your own two eyes that more then 11 stops worth of steps are gray, you will know that your theories are false. Then we can continue and discuss why.

You want T4110 (41 steps in 1/3 stop increments): http://www.stouffer.net/TransPage.htm



> Canon sensors have not changed since before the 7D.



Anyone who has shot a 7D and 70D, or 7D and M, or 5D2 and 5D3 or 1DX, can tell you otherwise. Improvements are small, but that's no different from the evolution of Exmor (i.e. D7000 to latest Nikon bodies).


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > > You are correct that some careful NR can close the gap. Thing is, if you actually look at my sample images I recently posted, there is still a gap.
> ...



???

Print the full image to 36", both the D800 file and your 5D3 NR processed file. See how many people can spot the difference without it being pointed out to them.

On a 96 ppi monitor you could also just put the two crops side by side and view at 50% in PS. My monitor is calibrated with a Colorvision Spyder that has me set brightness as part of the calibration, and I see very little difference between them. I can still pick out the 5D3 crop, but just barely. If your monitor's brightness is set too high it becomes easier.

But a landscape shot that included shadows pushed and processed like that and shown to people I know? Yeah...no one would notice.

So...honest question...how often do you blow your exposure, push shadows by that many stops, and print 36"? ;D

Side rant: you may be someone who just needs to get an Exmor camera for whatever you're doing with astro. I don't know. 99% of people who complain about this are complaining because they don't have bragging rights and that's all. Too much pixel peeping and not enough viewing/printing real photos.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > @Jrista - you shoot with a 7D. You've shown that you can take good pictures with it. I get your frustration with Canon's release schedule. Who knows the exact reason. But as a complete solution, if you can get better elsewhere then you would have moved. Is a 70D sensor really that bad? Based on it's target market, I think the MK II will do well. Even with a tweaked 70D sensor.
> ...



Jrista - Most of your pictures are taken at high iso, where there is no problem. For Astro work, ok, clearly Canon is way behind there. Where you feel you need the extra DR/low noise is on landscapes on those occasions where you shoot awkward scenes (ie range greater than 11 stops), and you don't/can't use filters or HDR?

If those extra 2 stops and the greater latitude that you can get from Nikon are critical for you, and all other things balance themselves out, then you have your answer...

But, people have been taking amazing shots for decades, and printing them large, without problems. I get the fact of your frustration. I get the fact that sometimes when you have to lift shadows there is more work than would be with a Nikon or Sony. But, how many of your pictures which are up to selling 

1) Are ruined because of the Canon sensor limitations?
2) Are noticeable by your average purchaser?

I think we all strive for perfection, getting the picture as much correct in the camera rather than post. But when you boil it down, how much of a problem is the Canon sensors (bar the Astro point which is well made)? Each and everyone of us has a different threshold. And whether we complain because wifi should be included, or whether we want a 100-400mm MK II or indeed a better sensor (i for one would love to get ISO 12 and ISO 25 which I used to get in film), it's good to provide the feedback for Canon, it's good to sometimes vent out our frustration.

But it's also good to put it in context - both from our perspective, and Canon. They're out to get best shareholder return. We're out to make the best pictures possible. Nothing holds us to each other - if we don't like it, then we can move. If we're a Pro, then we factor that into our business case to move. If we're amateurs, then I think the average one only has a couple of lenses and can move easily. Those with 4 or 5, not as easy, but still possible.

In my "photographic lifetime", the biggest impact to my photography has been having the time do it, and traveling to some amazing places - that's been the biggest improvement. Practice. Technically, live view, the 1D series of AF and the L lenses have improved my shots, the 1Ds MK III allowed me to take some great shots, but so did the 5D. Everyone's mileage is different...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 24, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Go take a long, hard look at jrista's processing of the infamous 5D3 vs. D800 online test.



_Ker-ching_! The correct answer. And it's possible to do a much better job than he did of the Canon files.



> DxO claims that there is a 2.5 stop DR difference between these two cameras. If that were the case then that door and those tiles in the far back should be BLACK. No detail or image at all in those regions, just blocked up shadow.



Precisely. DR is about where the shadows block up into no detail - _not_ about how much noise there is in the shadows. We have _no_ problem with the equivalent definition at the other end of the histogram - when highlights get to 255/255/255 - yet, the utterly specious "argument of convenience" about noisy shadows has completely subverted the discussion. 



> Instead we see the same features that we see on the D800, just with a lot more color noise.



Yep, and that's a _very_ easily-addressed situation - _if_ you know what you're doing.



> The color noise impacts our ability to push the shadows, or shadow latitude. But the DR is darn near the same. It certainly is *not* 2.5 stops less.



Exactly. Again, noise is sweet bugger-all to do with _DR_.



> Perhaps more importantly for someone buying a camera, the final result with NR shows just how small the difference ends up being in the real world. Yes, the D800 is better. Could you spot it on a 36" print? Probably, but it certainly would not ruin the print. 24"? Most people could not without being told to look for it up close. 12"? Nope.



I've demonstrated the same "uncomfortable truth" on numerous occasions too: the difference, I guess, is that _I don't convert/process Canon files in a deliberate attempt to make them look as bad as possible_.

Seriously, why don't people get this? The number of times I've seen "proof" that Canon files cannot be subjected to heavy lifting in the shadows - with all the sheeple who don't know (and haven't even tried to learn) any better, going along with the BS - is extraordinary: and yet it's so easily (and has been) proven that these examples are utterly unrepresentative of what _can_ be achieved, that - honestly - I'd be embarrassed to show that I was so gullible (or just so plain incompetent) as to believe them.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> I'm debating your definition of DR. You cannot simply shut that down at will. Your definition is flat out wrong.



Nope, _you're_ completely wrong. DR is _not_ synonymous with noise, or we'd also be talking about highlight DR (where Canon sensors perform very well, incidentally - funny how quiet the DR whiners are about _that_) in terms of losing detail to noise, _and we do not_. In fact, it would be an impossible argument to have.

QED.

It's a blatantly biased subversion and reinvention of the term by an irrelevantly small but very vocal subset of the user base, in order to support their tedious agenda.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2014)

@jrista – You state that Canon's sensors haven't improved since before the 7D, and that all of their competitors' sensors have substantially improved, that Canon's customers have been demanding improved sensor IQ, and that Canon 'must respond'. I know you're not being held hostage, but those statements sound a lot like some twisted CR forum version of Stockholm Syndrome (not coincidentally, Stockholm is in Sweden). 

Perhaps you can answer the question the DRones you're echoing have been unable to address – if Canon has been behind in low ISO DR for 4-5 years, and their market share hasn't eroded, then why does having less low ISO DR matter and why is it that Canon 'must respond'?

It's a bit sad to see you parroting all the DRoning in here. Don't get me wrong – it's perfectly fine (and correct) to state that Canon sensors deliver less low ISO DR than others. It's perfectly fine to complain about it, especially if that issue affects your shooting. It's fine to hope Canon does deliver sensors with more low ISO DR. But when you start saying Canon 'must respond' – implying consequences if they don't – with no evidence to back up that claim...that's when you join the DRones. 

You state that the 70D doesn't sell because of it's sensor, it sells because of other features. The point is...*it sells*. The D7100 has more low ISO DR, and yet it doesn't sell as well. The 'sensor IQ gap' is irrelevant as far as sales numbers. 

Your contention that the 'sensor IQ gap' will become 'so radically big' that it will have an impact 'in the next couple of dSLR releases' is, frankly, ludicrous. It's had no effect for 4-5 years, but 1-2 more years and it will make a radical difference? First off, Canon has shown a demonstrable capability to anticipate the needs/wants of consumers and to add features to meet them. That's why Canon continues to lead the market as they've done for 11 years. If differences in low ISO DR are going to affect sales (that's a big IF), Canon will address it...most likely _before_ it becomes an issue. Second, consider the discussion going on here...

_"It means I can push the shadows in RAW images 4 stops instead of 2 stops."

"You can easily see the difference in a 36-inch print."

"Shoot a Stouffer T4110 step wedge and you'll understand."_

A small fraction of the market shoots RAW, a tiny fraction makes large prints, and an infinitesimally miniscule fraction even knows what a Stouffer step wedge is, let alone has one. 

Small wonder this 'sensor IQ gap' has no impact on sales. The bottom line is that for the needs of the vast majority of dSLR buyers, the IQ delivered by Canon's current sensors is more than sufficient, and that's not likely to change any time soon. 

Friends don't let friends become DRiveling DRones!


----------



## tiger82 (Aug 24, 2014)

Sounds like this camera should be priced around $2499 not $3499


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 24, 2014)

I like the thought of improved sensors for my cameras yet I find exposing correctly in the first place helps a lot.

What I would like though is a much more intelligent metering system that doesn't use a grey average to calculate exposure.


----------



## candc (Aug 24, 2014)

i am looking forward to the 7dii. i have a 70d and think its really good but there are some things i don't like. its a bit too small for my liking, i assume the 7dii will be bigger, 6d or 40d size? the af system can be inaccurate in low light with certain lenses, the 7dii af sounds like a big improvement. i think the 70d iq is great for most situations but would like more dr and high iso performance. at some point canon should be able to implement some kind of dual iso feature with the dual pixel sensors, be nice to see it in this camera


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 24, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > > Canon sensors have not changed since before the 7D.
> ...


----------



## crashpc (Aug 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist: I agree with what you wrote, but of course it will have some effect on Canon. For example I´m Canon guy. For last year I bought three Canon cams. But if they don´t deliver here, I´ll be forced to look elsewhere, that way I´ll stop buying their products. So it has effect. I hope they solve it, because I´d be very happy to buy another Canon product.


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 24, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> ...
> <li>Built-in flash</li>
> ...




It's RUINED!

(I kid)


If it's only a 20MP Bayer filter though, that's pretty much the flag for me to wait for the 5D4, which will hopefully have high enough resolution to get similar detail while being full frame as well.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 24, 2014)

One other point; this picture of Fred Miranda's that keeps cropping up.

Go and take a look at the original full picture. Then consider why on earth you would ever want to raise those shadow areas so much. 

If you want proof that the DR of both cameras is more or less the same; here it is. 

This is why dslr photographers who want best possible IQ at low ISO have not moved to Nikon; this is only done for the sake of seeing what happens. Nothing more.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2014)

crashpc said:


> neuroanatomist: I agree with what you wrote, but of course it will have some effect on Canon. For example I´m Canon guy. For last year I bought three Canon cams. But if they don´t deliver here, I´ll be forced to look elsewhere, that way I´ll stop buying their products. So it has effect. I hope they solve it, because I´d be very happy to buy another Canon product.



I didn't think I needed to spell it out explicitly, but the effect I am referring to is an effect on market share, not at an individual level. _You_ may switch to another brand for more DR, that's not going to affect market share. Perhaps as you switch away from Canon, three other people switch _to_ Canon for better AF for video and/or stills.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> Canon's customers asked them to improve in those areas... Canon's customers have been demanding they improve in a different area, in the area of sensor IQ...The world isn't standing still. If Canon does stand still...



I was going to respond to these remarks, but them saw Neuro's response which pretty much covers it. (I would like to add though that I'd like to know when Canon's customers asked them to improve in those areas. I'm a pretty good customer of Canon and I don't recall signing a petition asking for improvements in those areas.)



neuroanatomist said:


> @jrista –
> 
> Perhaps you can answer the question the DRones you're echoing have been unable to address – if Canon has been behind in low ISO DR for 4-5 years, and their market share hasn't eroded, then why does having less low ISO DR matter and why is it that Canon 'must respond'?...
> 
> ...



Neuro's comments pretty well sums it up. I realize this is a gearhead forum and gearheads have a tendency to obsess over small differences...but really...these are *tiny* differences that affect only the most narrow niche market out of a niche market of a niche market. 

As many others have pointed out, sensors are important, but they are not the only important things about a camera and when you objectively compare the differences between all sensors today, one is very hard pressed to make the case that *any* improvement in sensors (aside from some miraculous physics-denying discovery) will ever have any impact on the market.

The biggest threat to the market today is from cell phones. None of the things that are obsessively discussed on this forum (dynamic range, sensor size, pixel density, etc. etc.) will have the slightest impact on addressing that threat. The biggest *future* threat is probably light-field imaging. Imagine the impact on the market if all the investment and research into focusing systems suddenly became irrelevant. I certainly hope Canon is investing more money in researching that field than in marginal improvements in the dynamic range of sensors. 

Jon referenced Kodak and Microsoft. But, Kodak did not go belly up because Ilford and Fuji made better film. They went belly up because their market evaporated due to an industry revolutionizing technology. And, frankly, I'm not sure what the point your trying to make with Microsoft. They remain the world leaders in operating system and office software. Most computers run on Microsoft operating systems and use Microsoft programs. That's their core business and no one is able to seriously threaten that business. In fact Apple has essentially abandoned the market. If Microsoft declared bankruptcy lately, I missed the news.

So, let's stop with all the "if Canon doesn't do ...they are *******" talk. It just makes you look foolish.


----------



## RickWagoner (Aug 24, 2014)

How spot on is Canonwatch with their rumors...They are sure about WIFI being included. 

I find it funny the simplest most basic feature we have in our lives today is the most debated for the 7Dii..

the day the NDAs end can't come soon enough!!!


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> A small fraction of the market shoots RAW, a tiny fraction makes large prints, and an infinitesimally miniscule fraction even knows what a Stouffer step wedge is, let alone has one.


Agreed! I see so many cameras in "green box" mode.... and there are probably more T3's out there than all other Canon DSLRs combined..... We at CR are definitely in the minority..

As to the Stouffer wedge... those of us who date back to B+W darkrooms have probably used Stouffer wedges, but just didn't know what it was called. (I didn't) 



neuroanatomist said:


> Small wonder this 'sensor IQ gap' has no impact on sales. The bottom line is that for the needs of the vast majority of dSLR buyers, the IQ delivered by Canon's current sensors is more than sufficient, and that's not likely to change any time soon.



I am at the point where I am going to upgrade my camera. I would like a better sensor.... but realistically, the camera I get will be decided upon mostly by the capability of the AF system. I shoot Canon because of the glass. I am not trapped by it, I am attracted by it. To me the camera is secondary.... The one that I bought (60D) was good enough for my needs at the time, and when I bought it I was confident that by the time I outgrew it that there would be far better choices. So here we are 4 years later and EVERY SINGLE DSLR that Canon sells (except the 60DA which is a special case) has better IQ. I can pick up a 70D today that will certainly meet my needs, but I am waiting on the 7D2 in hopes of a far better AF system... any other improvements are a bonus (to me).

So yes, at least for me, in the worst case scenario that the 7D2 has no better sensor than a 70D, I will get one or the other and despite the old sensor tech that I wish they would change, they will not have lost this customer.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> @jrista – You state that Canon's sensors haven't improved since before the 7D, and that all of their competitors' sensors have substantially improved, that Canon's customers have been demanding improved sensor IQ, and that Canon 'must respond'.





> A small fraction of the market shoots RAW, a tiny fraction makes large prints, and an infinitesimally miniscule fraction even knows what a Stouffer step wedge is, let alone has one.





> Small wonder this 'sensor IQ gap' has no impact on sales. The bottom line is that for the needs of the vast majority of dSLR buyers, the IQ delivered by Canon's current sensors is more than sufficient, and that's not likely to change any time soon.



But a fair percentage of buyers pay attention to online reviews. Neuro, I'm in nearly 100% agreement with you on your contention that sales tell the story. However, it's dangerous (as IBM, Intel and Microsoft discovered several times, and as Apple may soon discover) to assume that what worked in business for so long will continue indefinitely. It's a reasonable assumption that if the I.Q. gap gets wide enough, the popular press, review sites, and entities like Cons. Rep. will start to disregard Canon's whizzbang features and marketing prowess, and view Canon's lineup as unworthy of serious consideration. You're correct that this will not likely happen soon (e.g. in the next 2-3 years), but 5 years is not out of the question.

IBM, Intel and Microsoft may have had episodes where they badly misunderstood the market, but they were able to recover due to their deep pockets and a willingness to part with previous strategies. I believe Canon can do the same. Based on Canon's (corporate) track record, I'll bet they have the ability to deliver IQ equal to or exceeding what's on the market now, but they won't do so until market conditions force them. Eventually, as jrista points out, the market will force them.

One more thing: you should know by now that jrista is not a DRone. When he makes assertions he almost always has good reasons for them, and he's willing to talk things out and admit his errors. You may disagree with him, but try asking politely for citations rather than descend into name-calling.


----------



## tayassu (Aug 24, 2014)

If these are the real specs, the 7DII/whatever  is going to be a great camera on paper! If the new processors do some magic with the (hopefully new) 20MP sensor, this is a perfect all around camera with focus in sports/wildlife!  10fps, more (cross-type) points than the 1DX, looks promising for video also!! Great!  Compared to any other APS-C camera it would kickass, think about it! The Nikon D7100 or Pentax K-3 wouldn't even come close! I'm looking forward to the announcement and will save money even more intense now!


----------



## Joe M (Aug 24, 2014)

I realize a lot of people like to know what cameras may have what features so that they can make informed decisions on what to buy,_ today_. However, with this camera supposedly coming out in what you can almost count down in mere days now, what does it really matter to know what the specs are now as opposed to waiting days? The only other practical reason I can think of is to know whether or not the 7D will do the job and if the newer one will be better, it's time to sell before the price drops and it's not worth selling. It may be too late for that though. BTW, I do get it that this is CR but really, we are now talking days to reality and not rumour and I think at this point Canon has done a great job of keeping their specs secret and I doubt the entire true list of specs will come out before the camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> However, it's dangerous (as IBM, Intel and Microsoft discovered several times, and as Apple may soon discover) to assume that what worked in business for so long will continue indefinitely.



Which is why I stated:



neuroanatomist said:


> If differences in low ISO DR are going to affect sales (that's a big IF), Canon will address it...most likely _before_ it becomes an issue.






Orangutan said:


> One more thing: you should know by now that jrista is not a DRone.



I agree. But to borrow unfocused's phrase anyone who states, "...if Canon doesn't improve low ISO DR they are *******," is sure starting to sound like one.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 24, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > A small fraction of the market shoots RAW, a tiny fraction makes large prints, and an infinitesimally miniscule fraction even knows what a Stouffer step wedge is, let alone has one.
> ...



I concur. I've seen enough comparisons between Nikon and Canon that I don't think the DR differences are nearly as great as some would have you believe. I would like to see the 7D2 ship with a different sensor than the 70D--_slightly _ better resolution and IQ, but it's not a primary factor for me. What I'm most interested in is a rocking AF system with amazing speed and accuracy, a fast burst (10 is more than adequate--the 12fps would have been a better bet from 'staying in front of the competition" standpoint, but not a huge factor) and a deep buffer to utilize it and the same kind of ergonomics that have become so well regarded in cameras such as the 7D and 5D3. I also like the statement "I shoot Canon because of the glass. I am not trapped by it, I am attracted by it." Well said! 

I think this camera is exactly what the wildlife/action/sports crop-frame camera user wants and expected. Whether this camera is exciting or disappointing for you will probably depend heavily on whether you want it for its intended purpose. For wildlife shooters, I think it's going to be made to measure for us. For landscape/low light and video users, it will be a 'good' camera, but not what you're looking for--a FF 5D3 (or upcoming 5D4) will be a better choice. And a 1DX or it's successor is still ideal for a wildlife, sports and action shooter who wants to shoot in lower light--and if they have deep pockets!!!!


----------



## whothafunk (Aug 24, 2014)

tayassu said:


> The Nikon D7100 or Pentax K-3 wouldn't even come close!


Nikon D7100 isnt meant to compete against 7DII. It is meant to be compared against 70D. According to the rumours, Nikon has a 7DII competitor called D9300.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 24, 2014)

"I shoot Canon for the glass"

AMEN.

Better IQ with a sensor upgrade from the 70D is what I feel is a reasonable expectation for Canon's flagship APS-C format rig. I'm willing to bet that the most popular lens used in tandem (or at least of the top most popular, especially in the zoom category) is the 70-200IS Mk II or some earlier variant, which is one of Canon's crown jewels in the entire universe of pro glass. I know I use the hell outta mine.

Stepping up higher ISO performance was probably at the top of their to-do list when redesigning this camera, but anyone salivating over "near 5DIII" ISO performance is, I'm sorry, deluding themselves. It's still a limitation of physics of Crop vs. Full Frame. We have to be reasonable. That said, certainly there is still room to grow on a crop format and I trust Canon will answer this call after 5 years of stepped up tech advancements and whatnot.

All this debate is academically stimulating but once the camera hits with known variables, a whole new debate begins that renders this little more than playtime.

My sharpest and most used glass is my Sigma 35mm and 50mm ART 1.4s. I'd love to see them get notably more resolve on a new updated crop body, but they are no slouch now. Earlier someone opined about "waxy" 7D files. I don't know what that means. My 7D kills it for a crop, even when I was using an old 90mm Tamron Macro 172E (something like 3 generations ago of that lens).

Of course, when I'm shooting portraiture and artwork, i'm firing a 6D, which I also adore, but I can't reasonably compare that to crop.

I'm a Canon lover, but I'm also a realist. Canon needs to knock this out the park regardless of current market share. I don't want to watch Rome burn while Japan fiddles.


----------



## crashpc (Aug 24, 2014)

It seems to compare new APS-C with 5D II sensor. They can make it there....


----------



## David Hull (Aug 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist: I agree with what you wrote, but of course it will have some effect on Canon. For example I´m Canon guy. For last year I bought three Canon cams. But if they don´t deliver here, I´ll be forced to look elsewhere, that way I´ll stop buying their products. So it has effect. I hope they solve it, because I´d be very happy to buy another Canon product.
> ...


Not only that, but when he sells his stuff -- Canon gets another customer (or keeps one). This same argument was used when Sony came out with IBIS (for example) over on DPR there were huge numbers of posts bemoaning the imminent demise of Canon (and Nikon) if they didn't _immediately_ adopt this new "game changing" technology, yet so far we haven't seen it happen (and indeed, Sony have moved from it in a number of their offerings).

To put your summary in a slightly different way: Canon would not be where they are if they weren't good at figuring out what their market wants.


----------



## David Hull (Aug 24, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > @jrista – You state that Canon's sensors haven't improved since before the 7D, and that all of their competitors' sensors have substantially improved, that Canon's customers have been demanding improved sensor IQ, and that Canon 'must respond'.
> ...


Here is the problem with this thinking though: The concept of an "IQ Gap" is more hype than reality. Look at the reviews on DPR for example, they don't show much of an "IQ Gap" in fact for all practical purposes, none at all in their example images. This is why I call it hype, it is really "much ado about not much". Even those who try to demonstrate the so called "problem" (and we have seen this time and time again) have to resort to some extreme shadow lift test case to demonstrate their point with the resulting image being unusable for anything much beyond PI surveillance perhaps.

Your "IQ Gap", if it exists at all, exists over a very small subset of use cases (which no doubt are important to some, but clearly are NOT important to many).


----------



## jrista (Aug 24, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> One more thing: you should know by now that jrista is not a DRone. When he makes assertions he almost always has good reasons for them, and he's willing to talk things out and admit his errors. You may disagree with him, but try asking politely for citations rather than descend into name-calling.



Thanks for coming to my defense. I'll admit, maybe I'm being a bit too sensationalistic. We still need to see what the 7D II hits the streets with before we can really draw any concrete conclusions. I'm not particularly confident at this point, but maybe we will all still be WOWed...

That said, I'm not surprised by Neuro's name calling. @Neuro, to be quite frank, since your episodes of utterly childish schoolyard name calling and bullying with ZigZagZoe, a guy who certainly came on strong and took an immediate disliking to you (and whom I have zero respect for, as he is just as much a disgraceful schoolyard bully), I'm not surprised at all by your name calling. That seems to be what you resort to when you have no other solid argument to make. I've lost a lot of respect for you, thanks to those threads, and the fact that you are STILL resorting to name calling whenever someone tries to bring up DR. 

I'll shut up about it after this. It's not doing any good, and I don't want to rial up the locals into another pointless battle. However, you should really check the attitude a bit. I can't be the only one who was rather horrified at your behavior with the whole ZigZag episode. I can't help but view you in a different light now...and it isn't a good light. Just...something to think about regarding how people perceive you. I understand now why CR forums are considered to be full of raging fanboys.... We all *ARE *raging fanboys!  Raging enough to have the closest thing to a schoolyard fight between bullies as you can get online! I'm kind of ashamed to have been a part of that at all...maybe that's where part of my change of heart, change of stance, on Canon gear comes from now...I dunno.

Anyway...*I don't know if Canon will lose out because they don't change their sensors.* However, I do believe there are *some strong parallels to be draw* between Canon and many other tech companies that have failed or lost their competitive edge and market dominance (or simply missed the opportunity to expand into new markets) because they sat on technology and/or did not innovate. Canon innovates...it just does not seem as though their innovations are making their way into products. I most certainly do not believe Canon is an "evil" company, purposely withholding trivial features to keep customers "coming back for more in each future model" like LTRLI. I think they have their product lines segregated according to their business goals. But that's different than bringing new technology to market...especially in PRO-grade camera lines. I know the vast majority of Canon DSLR users are "green box" photographers...but, were talking about the 7D II here. This isn't an entry-level DSLR...it's a professional grade DSLR...something that has been hotly anticipated by a group of Canon photographers that are certainly more savvy than *"green box"* shooters. A group that should overwhelmingly shoot RAW and appreciate a better sensor.

As someone who DOES like Canon gear, particularly their lenses, which I've invested many tens of thousands of dollars into...it's a concerning realization, that Canon may be in a similar position as Nokia, Kodak, Microsoft, and so many others when old markets shifted and new markets emerged. I don't want to be sitting on a $13,000 lens five years from now that is still only capable of being attached to a DSLR that has the same sensor IQ of today, which is largely the same sensor IQ of five years ago. I bought that lens with the expectation that it would survive through a half dozen camera generations, each one better than the last, until I'm in my late 40's or early 50's. I'm not confident that I'll be attaching that lens to a camera that performs wildly differently then than I do today. I'll just sit back and watch now. Hopefully Canon will do something about it soon...if not, well, I *personally* am opening up my options for low ISO IQ. I'm tired of waiting for Canon to do something about it...and while I still think Nikon is a _schizophrenic _company, I'd rather buy a D810 and have a REAL RAW image format than buy a Sony A7r and have to deal with a gimped out lossy-compressed "RAW" format. Time to stop waiting for Canon to do something...I gotta do what I gotta do for my photography._ If that means Neuro labels me a *DRone*_, well...so be it. Not surprising there.


----------



## SwampYankee (Aug 24, 2014)

I think the concern is not so much the 7DII, but that Canon does not seem to have any new sensor technology on the horizon. Canon 1DX and 5DII, III owners are concerned that the high resolution sensor market has been conceded to Sony. The concern goes beyond the camera body. I have not bought a new lens in a year and I will not buy another lens for my 5DIII until I know that my investment in lenses will be worthwhile one in the long run. I would have already bought one or two new lenses but I will just live with what I have until I am sure Canon wants to keep my business. I hate to say it but I don't really care about their larger market share and servicing another market. I care about me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2014)

@jrista - I was attempting to convey the point that your statements _sound like_ those usually made by members known for harping on DR. I used words like 'echoing' and 'parroting' and 'sound like'. I don't think 'Poor DR spells doom for Canon' is your mantra, despite a couple of statements to that effect. "Friends don't let friends _become_ DRiveling DRones!"

But hey, if you feel that means you need defending and merits throwing out descriptors like 'childish', 'bully' and 'disgraceful', that's your prerogative. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## that1guyy (Aug 24, 2014)

I just think it's embarrassing how Canon's top of the line crop cameras are so far behind technologically to Sony's. Whether or not it will lead to the demise of Canon, I don't know.

http://nofilmschool.com/2014/08/dynamic-range-new-550-sony-a5100/

But the fact that a $500 sony has more DR than a potentially $2000+ Canon is embarrassing. Again, perhaps it won't make a dent in Canon's sales right now but if I was an executive at Canon, I wouldn't be satisfied with just good enough sales. I would want to be on the cutting edge of technology and not just sit on my ass. Seeing the competitors would have embarrassed me and motivated me to do better. 


EDIT: Can the mods start deleting posts that are only about the stupid bickering done here by aged men? It's just sad.


----------



## jrista (Aug 24, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> > (In my experience, "Photographic DR" is far more arbitrary, as everyone seems to define it or calculate it in a different way...
> 
> 
> 
> The definition and method of calculation is taught to every single person who earns a degree in photography in the country. A very large number of printers and scientists know it as well. It is not arbitrary.



And yet...it still hasn't been DEFINED. What, exactly, is the calculation you use to determine Photographic DR? Or is the calculation simply: "Shoot a step wedge and judge visually whether you have X stops or Y stops of DR?"

I'm sorry, but a simple visual judgement is insufficient. Your ignoring read noise, which you cannot do. (Well, you can...it just isn't valid...not for electronic sensors.)



dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I'm debating your definition of DR. You cannot simply shut that down at will.
> ...



In every single one of those pages you linked, including the book "The Negative" by Ansel (which I own, BTW), no one actually DEFINES what "Photographic DR" is. No one describes an objective formula by which it can be derived. I think Ken Rockwell, a poorly respected laughing stock nutjob in the photographic world (by anyone who isn't a total DSLR novice...for them, their trust of the guy is understandable), sums it up quite nicely:

"Real photographers don't care. We adjust our lighting so the subject's dynamic range fits within the range of the camera."

That isn't a definition of anything. That isn't an OBJECTIVE description of something that can be consistently applied to every camera. It's a massively SUBJECTIVE _reaction_, and the simple fact of the matter is: *We're not always able to adjust the subjects dynamic range.* As a wildlife photographer, I fully understand what he's saying...even though I don't control the sun, I still control my angle to my subject, so I can control it's lighting. That's why having a mere 7-8 stops of DR at ISO 12800 is not a huge issue for my bird and wildlife photography. It does often limit my ability to get the best subject pose and framing, but I can still control it. Or, I simply deal with the fact that I don't have enough DR, and suffer the consequences to get a better-posed, better-framed shot.

We all have to admit though...the kind of photography each one of us does most personally is not indicative of the market at large. Neuro has said that countless times. There ARE cases where we cannot control lighting or dynamic range at all. 

I'll pick up a transmission wedge, and I'll shoot it and we can actually have some real examples to debate with. The key difference here is the definition of dynamic range. I do not believe there is a single objective definition of Photographic DR. It's just an arbitrary term, and it seems to be redefined at will. Hence what is often called Engineering DR. This is an objective description of dynamic range that takes into account all the traits of electronic systems. Even the Wiki page on DR that you linked states that:



> Electronics engineers apply the term to:
> 
> the ratio of a specified maximum level of a parameter, such as power, current, voltage or frequency, _to the minimum detectable value_ of that parameter.



The minimum detectable value of a parameter, such as voltage (which is what digital sensor pixels accumulate...they accumulate a voltage) is determined by the amount of noise. Once you cross the threshold of read noise, you cannot say with any certainty whether the pixel is representing a real value, or a noise value. That's the problem with noise. Therefor, just as with Audio:



> Dynamic range in analog audio is the difference between low-level thermal noise in the electronic circuitry and high-level signal saturation resulting in increased distortion and, if pushed higher, clipping.



Analog audio is a one-dimensional signal. The analog signal in a digital sensor is a two-dimensional signal. It's still an electronic signal. Instead of a simple waveform that changes over time, a digital sensor is a spatial waveform. The exact same criteria apply for a digital image signal. There isn't any difference between sampling an analog audio frequency, and sampling a spatial waveform with a pixel. Both determine the amplitude of the signal at that location, and both are subject to noise levels in the sample. Dynamic range is the difference between low-level noise (that includes thermal or "dark current", but also read noise in a sensor) and the high level signal saturation.

I am calling into question the validity of using the old film-based Zone system to describe dynamic range in digital image sensors. *Film had no readout system!* In film, dynamic range was limited only by the amount of grain, which means it effectively behaved like an "ideal sensor"...the only source of noise was photon shot noise, inherent in the image resolved by the lens itself. Digital sensors are not only subject to photon shot noise...but they have the addition of read noise to content with. The zone system makes no allowance for read noise, nor does it provide any consistent means of accounting for read noise. 

Read noise cannot be ignored in digital sensors. It IS the point at which we reach the "minimum detectable values". The more read noise a system has, the lower the dynamic range, even if the pixels of the sensor themselves are actually capable of more, when those pixels are read out, the least significant bits of those pixels will be obscured and potentially obliterated by noise from the electronics of the readout logic.


----------



## jrista (Aug 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> @jrista - I was attempting to convey the point that your statements _sound like_ those usually made by members known for harping on DR. I used words like 'echoing' and 'parroting' and 'sound like'. I don't think 'Poor DR spells doom for Canon' is your mantra, despite a couple of statements to that effect. "Friends don't let friends _become_ DRiveling DRones!"
> 
> But hey, if you feel that means you need defending and merits throwing out descriptors like 'childish', 'bully' and 'disgraceful', that's your prerogative.
> 
> Have a nice day.



I'm not trying to insult you, however I do think you should know how you came off in your little fight with ZigZag. *That was an embarrassing episode.* You should have taken the high road, and just ignored the guy..._but you did not._ You stooped to his level, and became exactly what he started out being on his first day here. I loath the guy, he was flat out, strait up, a literal bully. He seemed quite proud of that fact. I tried to defend you on a couple occasions, despite you stooping to his level. He PMed me multiple times about you, and I laid into the guy about his behavior and his treatment of you. 

It was honestly dismaying to see you behave the same way he did. He was banned for his behavior, for Christ sake! All I'm saying is...you have a side to you that is decidedly NOT nice. It's downright mean and, yes, it comes off as childish. Just, be aware of that, and try to keep it in check...because again, in all honesty, I don't read what you write the same way anymore. When someone disagrees with you, your ultimate intent APPEARS to be to crush them, utterly. ;P You seem to have a DRoneaphobia as well. It's like the mere mention of DR sets off something in you, and you....just...._must_...._*CRUUUSH*_.



What do you think if everyone here started emailing Canon, started hitting up their booths at conventions, and started loudly demanding better sensor IQ? I mean, I know it "doesn't matter" to their bottom line, to their shareholders...but, doesn't better sensor IQ (and I don't just mean low ISO DR...Magic Lantern has boosted HIGH ISO DR by a stop or more!) matter to everyone here? It's clear that we can have more. It's clear that it's possible to create a sensor with nearly 80% Q.E. at room temperature, which means that we could quite literally see a one-stop improvement in high ISO noise for an APS-C sensor. It's more than clear that we can have two additional stops of DR at low ISO without that, but with a Q.E. boost, we could even have THREE stops of additional DR at low ISO (assuming 15-bit or better sensors.) It's clear we can have more pixels without sacrificing IQ. 

_*Does no one here want any of that?*_ If the members of these forums got up, got vocal, and started demanding...do you really think that wouldn't have any impact? Do you think Canon would completely ignore us...or, might hey possible take notice at least? Do you think that other communities on the net would notice that we've presented Canon with a unified front demanding better sensor IQ across the board, low ISO, high ISO, more pixels, better pixels, everything. Do you not think that could start a movement that could really light a fire under Canon' proverbial ass and force them to do something?

And, conversely...if we all just sit back and perpetually defend Canon for not doing anything wrong (which is absolutely true...they haven't done anything wrong...but they could do BETTER)...what will Canon do? If they HEAR their customers say en-mass "We don't expect you to do any more, to do any better, to innovate faster, to employ better technology."...why would they change? 

Dunno...just some thoughts. We may be entirely irrelevant, but the fact that we are considered Canon Fanboy Central here by many other photography forums on the net (though particularly DPR and Nikon Rumors)...it just makes me wonder if we might actually have some sway...


----------



## jrista (Aug 24, 2014)

msm said:


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



Yeah...probably right.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2014)

that1guyy said:


> I just think it's embarrassing how Canon's top of the line crop cameras are so far behind technologically to Sony's.



Can you please list the features that make a *camera* like the Sony A5100 so technologically superior to a top of the line Canon crop *camera*. Feel free to discuss advantages in areas like native lens selection, AF speed, frame rate, focus tracking of moving subjects, integration with a radio-controlled off-camera flash system, etc. 

If you mean _sensor_ and not camera, please say so. As I've said repeatedly, people don't buy bare silicon sensors to take pictures, they buy *cameras*.


----------



## jrista (Aug 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > I just think it's embarrassing how Canon's top of the line crop cameras are so far behind technologically to Sony's.
> ...



This I totally agree with. At the moment, Sony "cameras" are not better than Canon's...and their "RAW" image format is a joke.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> What do you think if everyone here started emailing Canon, started hitting up their booths at conventions, and started loudly demanding better sensor IQ?



Of all the things that I have read of yours on CR that is the most extraordinary to date. 

Demanding better IQ. Have you actually used a camera with the Sony Exmor sensor ? I know nothing about astrophotography, or whatever it's called; perhaps there is a benefit there, but to 'demand better IQ' with the exceptional sensors we now have........


----------



## jrista (Aug 24, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > What do you think if everyone here started emailing Canon, started hitting up their booths at conventions, and started loudly demanding better sensor IQ?
> ...



I don't believe the sensors we have now are "exceptional". I believe they are "good", but relative to what's possible, they are not exceptional. They may have been exceptional five years ago...but, that was five years ago. Things change. Things ARE relative. And as I said (which you did not quote)...I'm not just speaking about low ISO DR. It's possible to have more high ISO DR, it's possible to have all this, both improved low and high ISO DR, WITH MORE PIXELS. 

It's a simple question. Do you NOT want to have better IQ across the board? Truly? I mean, technology PROGRESSES. So, if you are honestly telling me that you do NOT want better top to bottom sensor IQ....

Then that is one of the most extraordinary comments I've ever read on these forums to date. 

I think I got lost in fighting against DXO and defending Canon all these years, and forgot that I DO WANT BETTER!  I WANT BETTER! I WANT MORE! I KNOW IT'S POSSIBLE, TOO. I honestly cannot think that I am ALONE on that front. I plain and simply don't even believe it. I think people here will only say they don't want more and better simply to continue defending their preferred brand. It's fine to prefer Canon. I do. I have many reasons for preferring them. However...that is no reason not to demand they give us more. I want D800 level low ISO IQ strait out of camera. I want ML-level high ISO DR strait out of camera. I want 70-80% Q.E. I want 50 megapixels. I can USE every single one of those sensor IQ improvements.

So...honestly...what's wrong with getting vocal about that TO CANON. You don't have to give a crap about any other brand...the point is to stand up and get vocal about your wants TO CANON, so your preferred brand will improve, will start offering you more capability.


----------



## xps (Aug 24, 2014)

Looks better now...

I heard an rumor (discussion between some CPS workers), that the sensor could be an updated 70D´s one. With an improved layer concept (not multilayer). Slightly better DR, 1/2 better aperture in noise. Could this be true?
And an better internal jpeg algorithm, to "pimp up" the jpegs electronically


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> It's a simple question. Do you NOT want to have better IQ across the board? Truly? I mean, technology PROGRESSES. So, if you are honestly telling me that you do NOT want better top to bottom sensor IQ....



The current sensors are not holding me back from anything I want to produce. I would like to see improvements in gradient of clipping to white and black, significantly more DR would speed up my processing. 

But to be quite honest, do I want sensor technology to progress to the point where anyone, never mind how unskilled, can press the shutter and produce a perfectly post processed picture irrespective of the mistakes they make in exposure ? No I don't. 

Despite all the advancement in digital imaging, photographic skill still plays a major role; I'm sure that that challenge to improve and advance is what many enjoy. However it is gradually being whittled down by technology. I just hope it doesn't go altogether. 

To a certain extent photography as an art form is defined by its limitations.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 24, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> New Battery – LP-E6N



I haven't kept up with the battery changes. Are the current varients interchangeable and just have different capacities or are they genuinely different? Is Canon just trying to keep people buying their batteries and away from third parties?

I have, and intend to continue to have, both full frame (5D) and crop bodies but will absolutely demand that they use the same batteries and chargers like my current two do.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 24, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > What do you think if everyone here started emailing Canon, started hitting up their booths at conventions, and started loudly demanding better sensor IQ?
> ...



Ha! This is extraordinary. There are a grand total of 8,132 members of this forum. This particular thread has drawn a total of just under 18,000 view and 402 replies.

That's good for an internet forum, but hardly significant in terms of customers. And, don't assume that a significant percentage of these forum participants agree with the premise. Please, let's have a little perspective here.

There are maybe what? – a dozen persons on this forum who consistently comment on and claim dissatisfaction with dynamic range from Canon sensors. 

Would I mind having improvements in sensors? No, of course, not. Do I think the differences between brands of sensors has any real impact on the quality of my photographs, absolutely not. 

Would I want Canon to divert research and development dollars away from other improvements to focus exclusively on sensor improvement? No way!

In fact, in thinking about features that would make be consider buying a new camera, an extra stop of dynamic range wouldn't even make it into the top 20. 



Sporgon said:


> The current sensors are not holding me back from anything I want to produce... To a certain extent photography as an art form is defined by its limitations.



Exactly. The joy and art of photography is in trying to make a machine conform to an individual's vision. To take the basic elements of a photograph and wrestle a compelling image from a mechanical box. 

Stephen Shore described the basic elements of all photographs: flatness, frame, time and focus. John Szarkowski talked about: the thing itself, the detail, the frame, time and vantage point. 

Both essentially are describing the same things. These are what make photographs photographs and until I master each of these, I'm really not going to worry about minute differences in sensors. I expect it will take me the rest of my life. 

So, if others want to start a new grassroots movement to demand more dynamic range in Canon sensors, go ahead, knock yourselves out.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 24, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Exactly. The joy and art of photography is in trying to make a machine conform to an individual's vision.



That machine's job is to make ME the limitation, not it.


----------



## jrista (Aug 24, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > It's a simple question. Do you NOT want to have better IQ across the board? Truly? I mean, technology PROGRESSES. So, if you are honestly telling me that you do NOT want better top to bottom sensor IQ....
> ...



So, if I understand what your saying...you purposely want to keep photography "elite" and inaccessible to novices or those you consider "not photographers"? Even if it means the same technology that makes photography more accessible could also *give you the means* to improve your own photography?

That is honestly not the reason I expected...  Not even remotely. 

I completely disagree that photography is being "whittled down by technology." Technology does not make someone a photographer. Technology *enables *real photographers, gives them more and better tools to create amazing works. We could have technology ten times better than we do today, and putting such a camera in the hands of someone who is not a photographer will NEVER result in a photo where the user "can press the shutter and produce a perfectly post processed picture irrespective of the mistakes they make in exposure." It has nothing to do with mistakes when it's an actual photographer who understands how to choose the right exposure.

Photography will still always be about the photographer. You will still always have to post process, and you will have to know how, to have the skill to fully extract the most quality. You will always have to pay attention to lighting, you will always have to choose the right exposure, you will always have to pick the right subject. Improvements in technology benefit the real photographer far more than they will ever benefit the non-photographer.

To wish technology would stop progressing so a novice cannot create a good photo is...quite frankly...incredibly selfish and egotistical. I'm honestly surprised by that answer. :-\


----------



## jrista (Aug 24, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. The joy and art of photography is in trying to make a machine conform to an individual's vision.
> ...



Totally agree. I don't want to be limited by technology.


----------



## Old Sarge (Aug 24, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > New Battery – LP-E6N
> ...



This one bugs me. I am hoping that the E6N designations means that it is interchangeable with the E6, otherwise I will have to carry BP-511 (for 40D...wife's 30D will be given to my son), LP-E6 for 7D, and LP-E6N for the 7DII/X if I decide to purchase it. Not a deal breaker....but annoying.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 24, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> To a certain extent photography as an art form is defined by its limitations.



I like the spirit of this observation. Knowing that the average shmoe isn't going to bracket/blend a high dynamic range scene means there's still something special when one does it, and does it well. 

Thankfully, the soul of a photograph is its composition, lighting, feel -- things that technology will likely never replace...



While digesting all these pages of discussion on dynamic range, I've decided to share my own two cents (if even worth that much): 

I recently returned from a short family vacation to Arches National Park. Being a vacation first and photo-op second, I wasn't able to be at Landscape Arch for the light I wanted, but since I was there, I still wanted to get some decent photos with my 70D.

The sky was mostly full of heavy black rain clouds and some sprinkling, but there was a hole in those clouds nearly over the sun, so despite the cloud cover, it was bright -- right behind the arch. I quickly set my camera to a three-shot bracket and fired away, planning to blend them in post. I used the same strategy the night before as the sun set behind us up at Delicate Arch. 

Back home with the RAW files in Lightroom, I started to do a little touching-up of the three shots before blending them, starting with the under-exposed shot first. Just for the hay of it, I decided to fiddle with the file as if I didn't have two other exposures to blend. The result? I actually skipped the other two exposures! Sure I might go ahead and take the time to blend them to see if I can get a better result, but I was amazed at what I was able to pull out of the one dark file with only modest noise reduction (Luminance NR at 26).

Here's a before and after (keep in mind I'm not a pro -- just a family guy with a 70D):






Landscape Arch Before-And-After (from underexposed file of three-shot bracket)

Anyway, for this non-pro, I was pleasantly surprised with what I could do, even if Canon is "behind" in dynamic range, latitude, whatever... Had I only shot JPEG, yeah, it would have been a throw-away, but isn't this why we shoot RAW to begin with?

PS: What looks like a halo along the top of the arch is some chromatic aberration (nearly silhouetted arch against bright clouds) "removed" by Lightroom. The color is gone, but I'm not sure how to eliminate the halo effect without resorting to some tedious Photoshopping.


----------



## jrista (Aug 24, 2014)

@Famateur: Because of the fact that the sky was overcast, that dispersed a lot of the light, resulting a higher diffuse ambient level. The dynamic range of the scene was within the dynamic range of the sensor. A scene that was directly lit by the sun would actually have had higher dynamic range, and actually posed a greater problem for lifting the shadows. 

Given the unprocessed version of your image, I would offer that you could have underexposed slightly more, and avoided the pinkish/purple toning that occurred when you recovered the highlights in the clouds. You might have had slightly more noise in the foreground, but I think that would ultimately be preferable to the color grading issues in the clouds.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> @Famateur: Because of the fact that the sky was overcast, that dispersed a lot of the light, resulting a higher diffuse ambient level. The dynamic range of the scene was within the dynamic range of the sensor. A scene that was directly lit by the sun would actually have had higher dynamic range, and actually posed a greater problem for lifting the shadows.
> 
> Given the unprocessed version of your image, I would offer that you could have underexposed slightly more, and avoided the pinkish/purple toning that occurred when you recovered the highlights in the clouds. You might have had slightly more noise in the foreground, but I think that would ultimately be preferable to the color grading issues in the clouds.



Agreed on both points. 

The first thing I noticed when I opened the file was that, despite the underexposure, I still managed to burn some of the sky. Hard to see on an LCD outside, but what can you do. With wife and kids anxious to move on, no time to fiddle with enabling highlight alert. I'll see if I can desaturate that patch of pinkish clouds with a local brush...


----------



## jrista (Aug 24, 2014)

Famateur said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > @Famateur: Because of the fact that the sky was overcast, that dispersed a lot of the light, resulting a higher diffuse ambient level. The dynamic range of the scene was within the dynamic range of the sensor. A scene that was directly lit by the sun would actually have had higher dynamic range, and actually posed a greater problem for lifting the shadows.
> ...



Aye, I understand. That is one of the areas where having more DR can be very useful. It has nothing to do with being a novice or not, knowing how to choose exposure or not. Sometimes the tools in our hands don't tell us everything. For example, JPEG thumbnails are usually used to generate the histogram shown on the camera, and to determine when to show "blinkies" that indicate blown highlights when previewing images. Use of JPEG results in highly inaccurate feedback. However, sometimes, when your on the run, with the family, wouldn't it be really nice to be able to dial in a darker exposure than you think you could probably get away with...and just not have to worry that doing so will affect your IQ? 

Two additional stops of editing latitude would allow that. It's just one of the things it can allow for. I don't think it's an invalid reason because it helps you continue to create better photography when your in a rush. There can't really be any bad reasons for having better technology. At the same time, having an additional two stops of editing latitude means if that arch WAS directly and brightly lit by the sun...you could have still gotten a photo and been able to extract whatever amount of detail you wanted to from the shadows, without running into nasty color noise, banding, etc.



Based on the tone around here, I can only assume the following: 

Just because you used a camera with a better sensor to get either shot, one with diffuse lighting vs. one with direct lighting, and were able to lift the shadows more, would likely get you labeled either as a total noob who doesn't know how to expose, or a poser who isn't a "real" photographer who takes on the challenge of creating a real work of art with limited equipment...

Seriously... :


----------



## that1guyy (Aug 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > I just think it's embarrassing how Canon's top of the line crop cameras are so far behind technologically to Sony's.
> ...



Let me compare the 70D to the A6000.

I know I specifically mentioned the A5100 when talking about the sensor, but I was speaking generally of Sony's crop cameras compared to Canon's in terms of overall camera capability so I'll use the a6000 as my example.

The a6000 is much cheaper at $800 (actually $648 now on Amazon).
The a6000 is full metal compared to 70D being plastic.
The a6000 shoots up to 11fps compared to the 7fps on the 70D
The a6000 has a 179 focus points compared to 19 on the 70D
The a6000 shoots 60p video at full hd (note: also with better quality)
The a6000 has 100% viewfinder coverage compared to 98% on the 70D

On top of that, it has a superior sensor with more dynamic range, color sensitivity, and tonal range. 

Sure Canon sells more, but it's probably due to the fact that Canon has better brand awareness with consumers. 

Edit: Let me also add, I'm not saying Canon's cameras are terrible. In fact, they're quite capable of getting good results. It's just that Canon no longer seems to care about having the best image quality (at least sub $6k) and being on the cutting edge in terms of features and sensor, and to me it's disappointing, regardless of sales figures, that other companies can offer overall better sensors AND better cameras, at a cheaper price. 

If you want to measure "better" by sales figures, go ahead but I'm just talking about my subjective views of "better."


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 25, 2014)

These specs just keep getting more and more bizarre. If correct, Canon is including GPS, which requires multiple really sensitive antennas near the outside of the body, but not GPS, which can be done with two cheap strip antennas taped to the back of the screen bezel. They did the hard engineering, and skipped the easy stuff. And that would mean that the 70D has one consumer-oriented feature, and the 7D has the other. Really weird.

 : ???

If correct, my only questions would be what they're smoking and where I can get some....


----------



## Zv (Aug 25, 2014)

that1guyy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > that1guyy said:
> ...



The a6000 is a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera while the 70D is a DSLR. You're comparing between two different types of camera. 

11fps is easier when there's no mirror to move out the way. 

179 AF points but how many are phase detect? Heck even the EOS M has 31 AF points but you wouldn't say it's better than the 70D now would you? 

And that viewfinder is electronic vs an optical one on the 70D. 

Cheaper? Of course it's cheaper it's a whole different class of camera. My point and shoot is cheaper than my 5D2, does that make it better? (Yeah, only in one category!  )


----------



## vscd (Aug 25, 2014)

> Edit: Let me also add, I'm not saying Canon's cameras are terrible. In fact, they're quite capable of getting good results. It's just that Canon no longer seems to care about having the best image quality (at least sub $6k) and being on the cutting edge in terms of features and sensor, and to me it's disappointing, regardless of sales figures, that other companies can offer overall better sensors AND better cameras, at a cheaper price.



Sony may have some advances in sensortechnology... but try to find a serious lens-package for an A7, for example. 

Maybe Canon has different priorities or is trying to invent/test something in the background. We don't know. There is always someone better until a new technology hits the market. Always take the whole package into account, a sensor is just a part of it.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 25, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> The current sensors are not holding me back from anything I want to produce... To a certain extent photography as an art form is defined by its limitations.





unfocused said:


> Exactly. The joy and art of photography is in trying to make a machine conform to an individual's vision. To take the basic elements of a photograph and wrestle a compelling image from a mechanical box.






jrista said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > That machine's job is to make ME the limitation, not it.
> ...



Clearly you don't get it. A camera is nothing more than a mechanical box. It will always be limited. To be a photographer is to understand those limitations, which can never be separated from the medium. And, to use those limitations to produce works of distinct, personal vision. 

In its highest form, those images will speak to people and convey a message than transcends the image itself. 

Sure, technology marches on and it's nice to be able to take advantage of those advancements to make images that are technically improved. But, never equate technical perfection with quality. 

Time marches on, but Robert Frank's grainy, unsharp, less than perfect images don't prevent him from remaining the most influential photographer of the second half of the 20th century. A photographer who accomplishment remains unmatched today.

Any photographer who can't produce a great image because of the limitations of his or her equipment was never much of a photographer in the first place.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Having better tech is useful, but is it always required?

Canon has to balance their investment and return across multiple lines within their camera business, and to be successful they're not always going to change at the pace we want. That they have the tech via patents but chose not yet to implement it means the business case does not stack up in terms of the cost of producing it vs the extra revenue it will bring.

Where I think you have to be careful Jrista is that you have stated that other than for astro photography, most of your shots are at higher ISO where Canon is not lagging behind. Your shots demonstrate that you can take good pictures. Yet you seem to have completely lost your rag with Canon (not anyone here) because they chose still not to implement their better tech.

Being passionate, voicing the need for change is fine. Appearing to suggest that Canon needs to adapt their ways or they will be the next dinosaur is somewhat out of character for you.

Will Canon be here in 10 years time? Not sure. The photography market is under threat because there is a high percentage of the population who are happy with the quality from their smartphones. That's hit revenues quite a bit, couple with a global recession. Many companies, including Canon, are being more cautious. 

Smaller companies are always less risk adverse... They have less to lose, and everything to gain. Nikon chose to side with another company who had nothing to lose, Sony. And the competition is great as a result. Ditto mirror less. More choice is good. Will Nikon survive their decision better than Canon? I suspect Sony will buy them in a few years time as they struggle to adapt.

I'm just not convinced personally that there is sufficient gain by moving to Nikon or Sony. Your mileage may differ. A friend of mine sold his 5d mk iii and probably about 10k euros of lenses, retaining his 600mm and 7d. He swapped to Fuji, so it can be done....

Like I said, your contribution to explaining a lot of the tech here has been welcome. I would welcome improvements in Canon sensor, sure would.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 25, 2014)

Hmm...after reading 28 pages of this, I'm pretty sure that "do you really need it?" is not an adequate justification for not improving out-of-camera IQ.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 25, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > The current sensors are not holding me back from anything I want to produce... To a certain extent photography as an art form is defined by its limitations.
> ...



I broadly agree with your comments. However, on the last sentence I think you need to be careful as it does depend on the subject. The tech, say AF, allows you to perhaps get more keepers than you might have done with less capable tech. A picture shot 50 years ago may be fantastic, but to many people if it had been shot with modern equipment it would be better for it.

LuLa did an editorial on the same subject a while back,and I believe the conclusion was, better tech makes things better, but is not a substitute. A camera may indeed allow a novice to take a technically better picture than otherwise. But it would indeed be the novice that might take a great picture - I think it will be a while before we have cameras telling us where, when and how to stand, what lens, aperture etc. This is what makes a great photograph, the photographer's vision.....


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 25, 2014)

that1guyy said:


> Let me compare the 70D to the A6000.
> 
> I know I specifically mentioned the A5100 when talking about the sensor, but I was speaking generally of Sony's crop cameras compared to Canon's in terms of overall camera capability so I'll use the a6000 as my example.
> 
> The a6000 is much cheaper at $800 (actually $648 now on Amazon).



Ok, that's true.



that1guyy said:


> The a6000 is full metal compared to 70D being plastic.



I haven't seen any information on the internals so have no idea on whether or not this is true.



that1guyy said:


> The a6000 shoots up to 11fps compared to the 7fps on the 70D



Good luck actually tracking anything that's not moving in an easily predictable way.



that1guyy said:


> The a6000 has a 179 focus points compared to 19 on the 70D



And exactly zero of those are cross-type whereas the 70D has 19 cross-type points through the VF and ~20 million line-type on the sensor.



that1guyy said:


> The a6000 shoots 60p video at full hd (note: also with better quality)



This is true.



that1guyy said:


> The a6000 has 100% viewfinder coverage compared to 98% on the 70D



The A6000 viewfinder has better coverage but it's tiny as hell and overall pretty awful.



that1guyy said:


> On top of that, it has a superior sensor with more dynamic range, color sensitivity, and tonal range.



These are also true.

Another thing you can't overlook is that the A6000 has the typical godawful ergonomics and controls that all Sony mirrorless bodies share.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 25, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Hmm...after reading 28 pages of this, I'm pretty sure that "do you really need it?" is not an adequate justification for not improving out-of-camera IQ.



How about staying financially secure enough to be around for the next 10 years? I believe the perspective is from Canon... How much will people not buy their kit and bring revenue if they don't change it this time....


----------



## x-vision (Aug 25, 2014)

that1guyy said:


> Let me also add, I'm not saying Canon's cameras are terrible. In fact, they're quite capable of getting good results. It's just that Canon no longer seems to care about having the best image quality (at least sub $6k) and being on the cutting edge in terms of features and sensor, and to me it's disappointing, regardless of sales figures, that other companies can offer overall better sensors AND better cameras, at a cheaper price.
> 
> If you want to measure "better" by sales figures, go ahead but I'm just talking about my subjective views of "better."



My sentiments exactly!


----------



## jrista (Aug 25, 2014)

Stu_bert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Famateur said:
> ...



First, I totally agree...I think at some point Sony will probably buy Nikon. There is obviously something wrong with Nikon's strategy. It isn't the technology...so it's something else. I myself see them as being schizophrenic, they make odd business decisions and seem to waste money on pointless things that are unlikely to recoup all the R&D costs, let alone make them money.

There are some out there who think that in a few years time, the only three players left in the ILC market will be Canon, Nikon and Sony, and possibly just Canon and Sony. The rest will either merge, fold, or enter the smartphone camera market in one way or another (kind of like Sony's QX line.) I don't know, I think more companies will ally with Sony in one way or another, use their sensors. Sony may scoop a couple of them up. In the end, there may well indeed end up being only three major players in the ILC market. 

Just to be clear, I have no intention of "*switching*" brands. If I do anything, it will be adding another brand to my kit. There are still problems with that. I despise the fact that Sony chose a lossy "raw" format...it doesn't even qualify to be called RAW since it's lossy. I'd have an A7r already if not for that. I also have never lied about my opinion of Nikon ergonomics. So, it's not an ideal situation. However...for my landscape photography...which, how often have you seen me share landscapes? Rarely.  I have never cared for the editing latitude of my Canon files at low ISO. Even with good NR, you still have to pick some balance between shadow detail and shadow noise. I'm quite good with Topaz DeNoise 5, it is a very effective program. But even that still eats detail for breakfast if you really push the NR far enough that Canon shadows look like Exmor shadows. 

My high ISO photography is great, I'm happy with it. I have no doubt I still have years of learning left for birds and wildlife, my work doesn't even compare to the pros. However, my low ISO photography? I've never been satisfied with it. I have some decent shots, but, eh. I figured Canon would have had a high DR part out by now, so I didn't let it bother me. But now it seems Canon is content with what they have...for whatever reasons....and I'm not. I don't like fighting with noise in the shadows. I don't like having to obliterate detail to clean my landscape shadows up. I just don't like it...never have. I was patient, I waited. I'm tired of waiting. I wait so often, wait on people, companies, technology.

I am personally convinced that the D800 or D810 could improve my landscape photography. Over the last couple of years, I've seen too many incredible photos on 500px and 1x that demonstrated the incredible power of having two additional stops of DR/Editing Latitude. This one in particular is just mind blowing...I'd LOVE to see anyone try to replicate that with a 5D III. I'd honestly bet good money it's impossible:

http://500px.com/photo/74066923/if-2-by-zsolt-kiss

The sun is fully realized there...and the foreground detail is, quite detailed. I think that's an amazing shot. I've tried shooting into the sun before with my Canon cameras. I'm fully and well versed in ETTR, I know exactly how to use it. I've used GND filters. I've NEVER been able to actually do what this photographer did with a D800. That's a scene with tons of DR....from deep shadows behind the rock and mountain, to the sun itself (which isn't blown in any way that I can see.) As far as I can tell, that was an f/22, 1s ISO 100 shot. I would LOVE to be able to do that!

As much as we, all being Canon fans, want to defend the company...they are behind. And they are falling farther and farther behind. I'm not joking when I say that Canon sensor technology is archaic. It really, sadly, is. If the 7D II gets a minimal evolutionary update to the 70D sensor...then, just as sad, that fact remains true. That disappoints me.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 25, 2014)

that1guyy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > that1guyy said:
> ...



Don't forget, the a6000 has a lousy viewfinder, lousy tracking autofocus, absolutely horrid ergonomics, tragic battery life, and a poor supporting system.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> Just to be clear, I have no intention of "*switching*" brands. If I do anything, it will be adding another brand to my kit. There are still problems with that. I despise the fact that Sony chose a lossy "raw" format...it doesn't even qualify to be called RAW since it's lossy. I'd have an A7r already if not for that. I also have never lied about my opinion of Nikon ergonomics. So, it's not an ideal situation. However...for my landscape photography...which, how often have you seen me share landscapes? Rarely.  I have never cared for the editing latitude of my Canon files at low ISO. Even with good NR, you still have to pick some balance between shadow detail and shadow noise. I'm quite good with Topaz DeNoise 5, it is a very effective program. But even that still eats detail for breakfast if you really push the NR far enough that Canon shadows look like Exmor shadows.



I think I'm in the exact same boat as you where the dynamic range limitation is something I rarely come across because of what I shoot but when it does I find it really annoying. Originally I was considering picking up a D800E+14-24 for the little bit of landscape shooting that I do, the main reason I was pushing that off was because I've never been terribly fond of Nikon's ergonomics (although they're still miles better than any of the mirrorless cameras I've tried). When MagicLantern released DualISO, switching to Nikon pretty much went out the window. I did pickup an A7 to try out the Exmor sensors, but honestly that camera feels like a chore to use plus the high ISO performance is surprisingly poor and I'll probably get rid of it sometime soon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2014)

that1guyy said:


> Let me compare the 70D to the A6000.



The 70D has a *vastly* superior lens selection. Telephoto lenses >200mm, including primes. Fast tele primes. Long macro lenses. Etc. 
The 70D has a 1-stop faster max shutter speed
The 70D has a 2/3-stop faster X-sync
The 70D has over double the shots per battery charge
If your 70D breaks, Canon will fix it with fast turnaround
The 70D has a robust ecosystem of flashes, accessories, etc., an ecosystem that Canon has a track record of developing vs. Sony's track record of abandonment




that1guyy said:


> The a6000 has a 179 focus points compared to 19 on the 70D



The 19 points of the 70D offer faster focusing and better tracking. Also, you're comparing AF points on the image sensor with AF points of the dedicated AF sensor. How about the proper comparison of points on the image sensor:

The a6000 has a 179 focus points compared to *~16 million* on the 70D




that1guyy said:


> If you want to measure "better" by sales figures, go ahead but I'm just talking about my subjective views of "better."



You absolutely should measure "better" based on your subjective views. That's how I measure "better" too. However, your subjective views differ from my subjective views which differ from everyone else's – that's what makes them subjective. So...what is _really_ better? What sales figures tell us is what aggregated populations choose as 'better' based on actual buying decisions. That's about as close as we'll get to an objective definition of better. For dSLRs over the past 11 years, that's been Canon.


----------



## racebit (Aug 25, 2014)

The key point is: this camera was promised to be revolutionary, the biggest evolution since the start of DSLR.
The listed specs show nothing of he sort, so I am still hoping the most important is still to be revealed. 
I was not expecting nothing related to pure IQ, but concept related, like no-rolling shutter, hybrid viewfinder, functional layered sensor, perfect live-focus, or something else out of the ordinary. Let Canon tell us. Not just more AF points, more fps (who cares, I have 7fps and use always 3fps for BIF) and other incremental parameters.
But I am not disappointed yet, I am still hoping. Maybe the key is in the DPAF v2? Perfect live-focus?
CR still not clarified what electronic MF means, is it manual focus or micro focus adjustment?


----------



## sfunglee (Aug 25, 2014)

I simple see the major point i like on 7Dm2 compare 7d would be :

1) SD back up slot
2) Dual Digic 6
3) Better battery
4) 10fps
5) f/8 at center
6) Boost ISO
7) Servo AF on video
8) GPS
9) 65AF

bit down:

1) about 100% coverage? 7D is 100%
2) 60fps/video but not 4k
3) 20.2 Mp


----------



## Diltiazem (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I can understand your frustration. You want better sensor from Canon and you don’t see it happening anytime soon. You even fear that Canon might become history if they don’t improve their sensors soon. 
I see things a bit differently. I try to understand why Canon is not doing what some of us expect them to do? There could be several reasons.
1.	Technological limitations.
2.	Lack of market demand.
3.	Cost benefit analysis mandate that they stay with their current tech for now. 

*Technology:* None of us really know what Canon is capable of at this point. But we know that they have not lost focus. They are exploring various options including on chip ADC, dual scale ADC, stacked layer sensor, microlens with higher refractive index, better implementation of BSI etc. There is also a myth that Canon has done nothing to improve their sensors. This graph would show that the opposite is true.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3619420
So, I see no reason to lose hope in Canon’s attention to sensor.

*Market:* Canon listens to market no less than any other camera company. Market demand varies depending on the market segment; but they can be broadly categorized as follows: a) easy operation and handling b) reasonable price c) durable product and reliable service d) functionality and efficiency matching camera class e) efficient and reasonably priced accessories including lenses f) IQ matching the camera class.
No one argues that Canon delivers as good as or better than competition in each of these categories with the exception of few who believe that Canon lags behind in IQ. This is a myth held by few who analyses pictures by graphs and numbers. If we take two modern cameras of the same class, one from Canon and one from Nikon/Sony; and we put up 100 pictures 50 from each, no one will be able to tell the difference, no one will go ‘WOW, this one has better IQ so it must have been shot by a Nikon’. As a matter of fact there is high likelihood that most will prefer Canon because of its so called ‘Canon color’. 
I shoot with both Canon (DR 11-12) and Nikon (DR 14). Sometimes I shoot the same scene with Canon and Nikon. And if I am not looking at the file name the only way I can tell the difference is by the presence or absence of greenish tint. 14 stops of DR doesn’t show up as you open the files except in rare situations where shadows will be slightly lighter in Nikon files, although that doesn’t automatically give a better looking picture. The advantage of low read noise comes during processing when dealing with shadows. With Nikon files you will need less NR in shadows. It has the potential to give you better shadow detail and color fidelity. But so much depends on other factors, such as the quality of the lens, technique or processing skill, that the difference is almost non-existent. Exmor DR/processing latitude is better, but it is still not as good as proper techniques such as fill flash, filter or multiple exposure blending. 
So, there is a reason why low read noise hasn’t made any significant impact. People see pictures (not numbers). People don’t see any difference between Canon or Nikon. IQ of a given scene still depends vastly on the capability of the photographer, his technique, his processing skill and the lenses used. 
What else is important in the market? #1 would be image of a brand. Those white lenses in the World Cup are more important in creating customer demand than any number DXO churns out. A lot of people do look at reviews before they buy a camera. Let’s take 70D for example. 
Dpreview: Gold award
Camera labs: Highly recommended
Expert Review: 5 star
Tech Radar: 5 star
Photographyblog: 5 star
IR: Dave’s Pick
I am sure Canon understands that they need to improve read noise. But it is understandable why they don’t see any urgency in it. Their priority has been high ISO noise and in this respect they are very competitive. My guess would be that their next target is higher MP. We are likely to see higher MP cameras from Canon in a year.
*Cost/benefit:* We can only make guesses here. World economy hasn’t recovered. Cellphone is threatening the existence of camera and it has already replaced camera as the dominant photo taking tool. It makes every sense if Canon wants to remain as profitable as they can now so that they are better prepared to deal with the uncertainties of the future. 

As a dual system user, Canon cameras along with lenses such as 24-70/II, 70-200/II, 135mm/2, 85mm/1,2, 17 and 90mm TS etc. remain my favorite photo taking tool, I use them more than 90% of the time. I only wish that they come up with 100-400 MKII soon.  And DR? I will wait till they address it. I won’t jump ship. I may actually sell my Nikon gears. 

But yeah, I agree that we should make more noise about read noise in between times when we are not busy having fun with our Canon gears.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2014)

Diltiazem said:


> —snip—



Excellent, well reasoned post!


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2014)

racebit said:


> The key point is: this camera was promised to be revolutionary, the biggest evolution since the start of DSLR.



wait.. where was this promise by canon? I missed this.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 25, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Perhaps you can answer the question the DRones you're echoing have been unable to address – if Canon has been behind in low ISO DR for 4-5 years, and their market share hasn't eroded, then why does having less low ISO DR matter and why is it that Canon 'must respond'?...



Perhaps you should answer how you can take pictures with Canon stock or sale numbers?

And many a company weather the lazy storm for a while, before sales finally started taking a hit.





> Neuro's comments pretty well sums it up. I realize this is a gearhead forum and gearheads have a tendency to obsess over small differences...but really...these are *tiny* differences that affect only the most narrow niche market out of a niche market of a niche market.



More like it's a fanboys forum for fanboys (although with jrisita no longer acting like one at all, it's maybe starting to make a change).

It's amusing that a 2-3 stop difference means nothing and yet when Canon does better for SNR and it's like 1/3 stop better than it's all wow Canon rules!!!!!




> So, let's stop with all the "if Canon doesn't do ...they are *******" talk. It just makes you look foolish.



Which would NOT be a good thing for Canon users.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 25, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> racebit said:
> 
> 
> > The key point is: this camera was promised to be revolutionary, the biggest evolution since the start of DSLR.
> ...



We (the fanatical users) promised it in their name.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 25, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Total DR? The 70D is 1/3 stop behind Exmor.



Utter lie and fabrication, even your favorite site, flat out says that the 70D feels like it has an old sensor in regards to low ISO performance and that it acts like it's more than 2 stops behind Exmor.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 25, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It's amusing that a 2-3 stop difference means nothing and yet when Canon does better for SNR and it's like 1/3 stop better than it's all wow Canon rules!!!!!



A 2-3 stop difference in base ISO DR actually does mean less to me than a 1/3 stop difference in high ISO performance. This is because I virtually never run into base ISO DR problems (even with the 18MP 1.6-crop sensor), but I'm always struggling against high ISO limits.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 70D has a *vastly* superior lens selection. Telephoto lenses >200mm, including primes. Fast tele primes. Long macro lenses. Etc.
> The 70D has a 1-stop faster max shutter speed
> The 70D has a 2/3-stop faster X-sync
> The 70D has over double the shots per battery charge
> ...



If I was in the market, I wouldn't buy into this watered down sales-speak.

It sounds like you're selling Tupperware.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 25, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Shoot a transmission step wedge with a 70D, 5D3, or 1DX. (7D value actually looks about right.) When you see with your own two eyes that more then 11 stops worth of steps are gray, you will know that your theories are false. Then we can continue and discuss why.



Yeah maybe because IR uses NR!!!! of unknown and random amounts while the other measuring company does not.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 25, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Side rant: you may be someone who just needs to get an Exmor camera for whatever you're doing with astro. I don't know. 99% of people who complain about this are complaining because they don't have bragging rights and that's all. Too much pixel peeping and not enough viewing/printing real photos.



Dude, the whole reason people started looking into banding and DR and figuring out what was going on was because they noticed things when out shooting, they didn't start out in the lab.

It's the little fanboys who can't handle it when anything they spend money on is not declared 100% the best in every single possible regard. The so-called DRoners actually can handle the truth when not every last aspect of the camera they bought doesn't end up being the best.

And the DR guys made such a huge deal because they know it takes time to fix that so you need to complain way ahead of your breaking point and you need to complain loudly if there is a prayer to get Canon to feel like bothering to spend money to fix things up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> If I was in the market, I wouldn't buy into this watered down sales-speak.
> It sounds like you're selling Tupperware.



Yeah. I mean...long lenses? Who needs 'em? 200mm is plenty, just get closer. Good flashes and high Xsync speeds? Useless. Servo tracking for moving subjects? Phth – real men use manual focus, and the a6000 has peaking so that's even better!


----------



## unfocused (Aug 25, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you can answer the question the DRones you're echoing have been unable to address – if Canon has been behind in low ISO DR for 4-5 years, and their market share hasn't eroded, then why does having less low ISO DR matter and why is it that Canon 'must respond'?...
> ...



That wasn't my quote. It was Neuro. 

Amazing to me how people who claim to have such superior knowledge and interest in technical matters can not master this site's basic HTML.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 25, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Go take a long, hard look at jrista's processing of the infamous 5D3 vs. D800 online test.
> ...



But of course were you to push the D800 another 2-3 stops it would, of course, be impossible to apply the same sort of NR techniques.

And of course the NR not only removes the noise but adds back in 2-3 stops of detail, of course.

:


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 25, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I'm debating your definition of DR. You cannot simply shut that down at will. Your definition is flat out wrong.
> ...



Well from someone who actually knows QED the physics theory, I'm with jrista on this one.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > If I was in the market, I wouldn't buy into this watered down sales-speak.
> ...



You don't have to convince me. I stay with Canon because I believe the lens system is superior in quality and variety (as well as out-of-camera color).

However, I'm not sure that talking about an "ecosystem" is going to lure new shooters over. It sounds more like the camera isn't good enough to stand alone, so priority is placed on peripheral aspects.


----------



## racebit (Aug 25, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > racebit said:
> ...



The term revolutionary comes from rumors here at CR, but I remember about one year ago, an interview posted here at CR (news, not forum), where the Canon manager (camera division) stated that 7D successor would be something special, a milestone, not just an iteration, don't remember the words exactly.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 25, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



+1

plus DIGIC (or Canon marketing, not sure which) makes internal Canon video so soft that you'd almost need inernal 4k to get true high quality 1080p detail (witness how radically much more detail ML pulls out of a 5D3 compared to stock 5D3 video)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > You misunderstand, we are saying the opposite. I was arguing with people who are against including Wifi in cameras for some reason.
> ...



Only reasons I can think of is they are total brand fanboys so if their brand doesn't do something, that something can't matter for anyone. Or they are paid to astroturf the forums. Or they are the sort who can't handle spending money on something that doesn't happen to be the best in every single regard. Or are overly fearful about costs and don't have a good sense of what costs what and tech.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 25, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Or, maybe canon did target the 7 series towards sports and wildlife shooters. If the 7 series is targeted in such a manner, what would they have to take away from these proposed specs to give it 4k video? Or, how ginormous would the price tag be if it did? Would it need a third digic 6 in there to handle video output? Would they have had to back off on the AF for it? Or, if you look at the A7s, then would we see a 7d2 with a 12MP sensor?



Why would it take a third digic 6 to handle 4k video when the 1DC shows that TWO digic FIVE can already drive 4k video off of non-line skipped sensor reads?

Why would they have to back off of AF?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 25, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > It's amusing that a 2-3 stop difference means nothing and yet when Canon does better for SNR and it's like 1/3 stop better than it's all wow Canon rules!!!!!
> ...



That is fine, but that is entirely different than saying flat out that 2-3 stops means less or is a more modest difference.


----------



## Woody (Aug 25, 2014)

The 7D Mark 2 rumored specs seem interesting (those 65 cross AF points sounds attractive to me).

What I'll like to see:
(a) weight not greater than 70D... Canon execs talk about reduced weight across all imaging products... let's see how real this one is...
(b) improved sensor quality (whether it's at high or low ISO... we are stuck in this same old 18-20 MP APS-C sensor rut for too long now...)
(c) touchscreen... this pairs up very well with DPAF... allows fast selection of AF point... don't care for DPAF if there is no touchscreen... for me...

Doubt my wishes will come true...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 25, 2014)

unfocused said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Amazing how you forgot that you quoted Neuro there to say that he got it all right, I was responding to the fact that you said you agreed with that and that he said it all.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 25, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



No. You attributed Neuro's quote to me and then apparently couldn't figure out to attribute my real quotes to me. 



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Well from someone who actually knows QED the physics theory, I'm with jrista on this one.



So, while you might be great at "QED the physics theory," I was simply pointing out that you didn't seem able to master the site's very simple HTML. 

So, from someone who doesn't know "QED the physics theory," I'm with Neuro on this one.


----------



## jrista (Aug 25, 2014)

So many things I would love to respond to. However, I'm where I think everyone in this thread should be right now: out doing photography. I am currently at Kiowa-Bennett Rd. and Hwy 79...i just finished photographing a field of sunflowers and am preparing to try and photograph the milky way (although we'll se how that goes...I'm just east of DIA...).

I left this debate twice yesterday to scout photography spots like this one. I left it again today to actually do photography. I encourage everyone not to get so wrapped up in the debate, as important as it may be to some of us, that they forget to do the thing with their gear that we all debate about anyway. 

Saggitairius, Scorpius, Cygnus and more beckon...catch you chums later. :


----------



## Richard8971 (Aug 25, 2014)

Outside of the newer technology, it sounds like a upgraded 1D4 with a crop sensor. 

I'm not all that worried about it having a high megapixel sensor. I would gladly trade a few megapixels for super clean image quality. I love my 7D and likely won't rush out and buy a 7D2. 

I will wait and see how the image samples compare to the 1D4. I still think that the 1D4 will have cleaner image samples over any crop body, unless it comes with a whole new sensor that blows away just about everything else out there. I would upgrade to a 1D4 in a heartbeat.

D


----------



## jrista (Aug 25, 2014)

Mmm. Double feature...brewing T-storm off in the distance...and the milky way. All playing nice together over a field of sunflowers. ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> So many things I would love to respond to. However, I'm where I think everyone in this thread should be right now: out doing photography. I am currently at Kiowa-Bennett Rd. and Hwy 79...i just finished photographing a field of sunflowers and am preparing to try and photograph the milky way (although we'll se how that goes...I'm just east of DIA...).
> 
> I left this debate twice yesterday to scout photography spots like this one. I left it again today to actually do photography. I encourage everyone not to get so wrapped up in the debate, as important as it may be to some of us, that they forget to do the thing with their gear that we all debate about anyway.
> 
> Saggitairius, Scorpius, Cygnus and more beckon...catch you chums later. :


+1
For me it was a canoe, a storm case of gear, egrets, herons, ducks, geese, turtles, and a very elusive kingfisher. A day well spent!


----------



## jrista (Aug 25, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > So many things I would love to respond to. However, I'm where I think everyone in this thread should be right now: out doing photography. I am currently at Kiowa-Bennett Rd. and Hwy 79...i just finished photographing a field of sunflowers and am preparing to try and photograph the milky way (although we'll se how that goes...I'm just east of DIA...).
> ...



Absolutely!


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> What, exactly, is the calculation you use to determine Photographic DR? Or is the calculation simply: "Shoot a step wedge and judge visually whether you have X stops or Y stops of DR?"



That's generally good enough, yes, though you're welcome to evaluate the shot with instruments.

There is *not* a magic formula which allows you to translate engineering SNR for a sensel into photographic dynamic range for an entire digital camera. That seems to be what you are looking for and it does not exist. There are multiple reasons for this, not the least of which is that photographic DR is evaluated for a 2 dimensional light sensitive material with many imaging elements (sensels or grains), and is not based on a single element. If you applied an "engineering" definition of DR, or SNR, to photographic film you would conclude it has 1 stop because at the level of a single grain you would find either silver or clear base and nothing in between. (Ironic that digital cameras are analog at the sensel and film is "digital" at the grain.)

There are other reasons, but the point is looking at sensel SNR...even though it's related...gives a false impression. But just because there is no simple formula to translate sensel SNR into DR does not mean that DR is arbitrary or subjective.



> In every single one of those pages you linked, including the book "The Negative" by Ansel (which I own, BTW), no one actually DEFINES what "Photographic DR" is.



Luminance range between black and white. (For the nth time.)

As for Ken Rockwell: "In photography, dynamic range is the difference between the lightest light and darkest dark which can be seen in a photo." Bingo.



> I do not believe there is a single objective definition of Photographic DR.



Saying this after the references I've provided is...embarrassing. You're arguing to argue, not discussing to learn.



> It's just an arbitrary term, and it seems to be redefined at will.



Every source I linked has the same definition even if they call it by another name (i.e. luminance range). I'm not aware of any other definition in photography.



> I am calling into question the validity of using the old film-based Zone system to describe dynamic range in digital image sensors. *Film had no readout system!* In film, dynamic range was limited only by the amount of grain, which means it effectively behaved like an "ideal sensor"...the only source of noise was photon shot noise, inherent in the image resolved by the lens itself.



Grain irregularity was itself noise.

I cut a lot from your post where you're theorizing. Observe, then theorize.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Pretty smug considering neither one of you have actually tested your theories.

When you do and you see gray patches beyond the 10 stops (or whatever) you predict Canon cameras have because "sensel noise!", come back with a more humble attitude so you can learn.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> So many things I would love to respond to. However, I'm where I think everyone in this thread should be right now: out doing photography. I am currently at Kiowa-Bennett Rd. and Hwy 79...i just finished photographing a field of sunflowers and am preparing to try and photograph the milky way (although we'll se how that goes...I'm just east of DIA...).
> 
> I left this debate twice yesterday to scout photography spots like this one. I left it again today to actually do photography. I encourage everyone not to get so wrapped up in the debate, as important as it may be to some of us, that they forget to do the thing with their gear that we all debate about anyway.
> 
> Saggitairius, Scorpius, Cygnus and more beckon...catch you chums later. :



Hey can I pick your knowledgeable brain on a few astrophotography queries? Have a 6D & 7D. Would love some insight on IR sensor conversion to shoot astro. Been considering getting my 7D modified, but from WHOM?!? Seems like a lot of places do it. I know little of it but I'd much rather get your advice than continuing to endlessly google search. What do you use? after market modifications? filters, etc... ? Feel free to email off the blog. [email protected] Thanks!


----------



## TeT (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> So many things I would love to respond to. However, I'm where I think everyone in this thread should be right now: out doing photography. I am currently at Kiowa-Bennett Rd. and Hwy 79...i just finished photographing a field of sunflowers and am preparing to try and photograph the milky way (although we'll se how that goes...I'm just east of DIA...).
> 
> I left this debate twice yesterday to scout photography spots like this one. I left it again today to actually do photography. I encourage everyone not to get so wrapped up in the debate, as important as it may be to some of us, that they forget to do the thing with their gear that we all debate about anyway.
> 
> Saggitairius, Scorpius, Cygnus and more beckon...catch you chums later. :



Are you sure it is sunflowers, I thought they were growing other stuff in CO these days


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> It's a simple question. Do you NOT want to have better IQ across the board? Truly? I mean, technology PROGRESSES. So, if you are honestly telling me that you do NOT want better top to bottom sensor IQ....



Every single Canon ILC I have purchased has had better IQ then the camera I purchased before it. The next Canon camera will as well. To say nothing of their lens advancements. As for DR, 

Not that I'm hostile to other brands. Canon does not have a FF MILC so I imagine a Sony A7 is in my future.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 25, 2014)

that1guyy said:


> The a6000 is much cheaper at $800 (actually $648 now on Amazon).
> The a6000 is full metal compared to 70D being plastic.
> The a6000 shoots up to 11fps compared to the 7fps on the 70D
> The a6000 has a 179 focus points compared to 19 on the 70D



From reviews and comments it simply cannot track like a 70D. What good is 11fps and 179 AF points if the subject doesn't stay in focus as it's moving?

Nice camera no doubt...but mirrorless claims of "world's fastest/best AF" are laughable at this point in time. It never really is that.


----------



## jrista (Aug 25, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > It's a simple question. Do you NOT want to have better IQ across the board? Truly? I mean, technology PROGRESSES. So, if you are honestly telling me that you do NOT want better top to bottom sensor IQ....
> ...



The sad thing here is, despite my asking you for an objective definition of photographic Dr, not one single thing you have said in this entire thread has been anything but subjective. Do you not see the problem with that? (Honest question.)


----------



## jrista (Aug 25, 2014)

TeT said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > So many things I would love to respond to. However, I'm where I think everyone in this thread should be right now: out doing photography. I am currently at Kiowa-Bennett Rd. and Hwy 79...i just finished photographing a field of sunflowers and am preparing to try and photograph the milky way (although we'll se how that goes...I'm just east of DIA...).
> ...



Oh dear god.  When will it stop!! 

Every time, whether it's "growing" or anything else that can be related to weed, someone makes a joke about it these days.  Guess we asked for it.

BTW, never partaken of the stuff myself, and I voted to tax the crap put of it.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 25, 2014)

looks pretty decent to me
if there a some deals or sale down the road after the bleeding edge stampede dies off i might pick one up and leave it stuck on the tamron 150-600


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> I am personally convinced that the D800 or D810 could improve my landscape photography. Over the last couple of years, I've seen too many incredible photos on 500px and 1x that demonstrated the incredible power of having two additional stops of DR/Editing Latitude. This one in particular is just mind blowing...I'd LOVE to see anyone try to replicate that with a 5D III. I'd honestly bet good money it's impossible:



What on Earth makes you think that's not an exposure blend / HDR? (It doesn't appear to be GND.) I would also guess the "sunburst" is artificial or enhanced, though I could be wrong on that.



> I've NEVER been able to actually do what this photographer did with a D800.



That's because you can't do it in a single frame unless the sun is heavily masked by something (fog; GND), which doesn't appear to be the case here. Not unless you have a DSLR with a 20+ stop NASA sensor.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 25, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Utter lie and fabrication, even your favorite site, flat out says that the 70D feels like it has an old sensor in regards to low ISO performance and that it acts like it's more than 2 stops behind Exmor.



Please post YOUR step wedge shots for evaluation...RAWs...along with lighting details. Thank you.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 25, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Yeah maybe because IR uses NR!!!! of unknown and random amounts while the other measuring company does not.



Because ACR default = "unknown and random amounts...UNKOWN...RANDOM!!!"

Then again, NR doesn't make black steps gray :


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 25, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Dude, the whole reason people started looking into banding and DR and figuring out what was going on was because they noticed things when out shooting, they didn't start out in the lab.



The reason 99% of people bring this up in forums is because they saw a test a guy did once where he pushed D800 shadows and 5D3 shadows and the 5D3 had lots of color noise.

Of course they didn't realize that color noise disappears with a little NR which he had turned completely off on the Canon. 

And then they confused latitude and DR. (The fact that both cameras recorded the same details in the shadows means the DR was actually the same.)



> It's the little fanboys who can't handle it when anything they spend money on is not declared 100% the best in every single possible regard.



Yes, all of us saying that Exmor does have less shadow noise and that is nice to work with are Canon fanboys who can't handle it when Canon is not declared #1 :

It's the guys stomping their feet and saying if the 7D2 doesn't give them 36 MP with 20 stops of DR and FF high ISO that they are LEAVING Canon because Canon just DOESN'T CARE about them and is falling behind because their sensors haven't improved since the 10D. 

Those are the rational ones ;D



> And the DR guys made such a huge deal because they know it takes time to fix



ACR NR sliders are hard! ;D ;D ;D


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 25, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> But of course were you to push the D800 another 2-3 stops it would, of course, be impossible to apply the same sort of NR techniques.



There are not another 2-3 stops of detail in either RAW file. That's the point. Both the Canon and the Nikon faded to black (so to speak) at about the same point. The D800 just did so with less noise and therefore finer resolution, though the resolution difference was very small. The noise difference is large, right up until the point where you move an ACR slider. After that you get shadow detail that most people cannot tell apart in 36" prints.

CANON IS FALLING BEHIND I JUST CAN'T PHOTOGRAPH LANDSCAPES ANY MORE!!! ;D ;D ;D


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 25, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Well from someone who actually knows QED the physics theory, I'm with jrista on this one.



Your theory does not apply to this situation in the way you think it does. Which you might understand if you would OBSERVE.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> The sad thing here is, despite my asking you for an objective definition of photographic Dr, not one single thing you have said in this entire thread has been anything but subjective. Do you not see the problem with that? (Honest question.)



The *objective* definition has been given, repeated, and backed up with multiple references including the textbook that is, or at least was at one time, used for teaching photography at MIT. I have more then supported my case, and my position is consistent with observational evidence that you yourself have provided.

Until you've tested the sensors in question against a step wedge I think this is done.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Aug 25, 2014)

Close enough for me...Where the H#11 is the 100-400 at in all this


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 25, 2014)

mycanonphotos said:


> Close enough for me...Where the H#11 is the 100-400 at in all this



Now THOSE are fighting words! Canon doesn't upgrade that lens I am gone...GONE! ;D


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 25, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Go take a long, hard look at jrista's processing of the infamous 5D3 vs. D800 online test.
> ...



Just wanted to say thanks for your posts.

I am simply confused as to how jrista can ignore his own evidence :-\


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2014)

racebit said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



_Yes, they would be correct. For us, it’s about looking at what the camera has the potential to be and then adding that to what it can currently do. I do think the current model is still very attractive to buyers. And while we are, of course, developing its successor, it’ll be one that incorporates a certain number of innovative technologies. We will not be putting out a product with merely better specs, but one that has evolved into new territory. But then again, we’re not talking about something a long time from now either._

65 point all cross AF would certainly be innovative. never done before. 

if the do the auto MFA stuff .. that's certainly not done before .. will the 7D evolve? we don't know.. we don't even know the specs yet, nor even what is in it - well the two canon engineers obviously on this thread do


----------



## jrista (Aug 25, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I am personally convinced that the D800 or D810 could improve my landscape photography. Over the last couple of years, I've seen too many incredible photos on 500px and 1x that demonstrated the incredible power of having two additional stops of DR/Editing Latitude. This one in particular is just mind blowing...I'd LOVE to see anyone try to replicate that with a 5D III. I'd honestly bet good money it's impossible:
> ...



Ahh. So, your happy to claim Canon cameras have the same DR as cameras with Exmor sensors, however when presented with evidence to the contrary, you switch to incredulity? Here are a few more examples of people shooting directly into the sun with a D800, and still having bright, noiseless foreground detail:

http://500px.com/photo/77205501/at%C3%A9-ao-fim-by-alvaro-roxo
http://500px.com/photo/79771739/red-sunset-by-giulio-annibali
http://500px.com/photo/37222976/rise-and-shine-by-justin-sheely
http://500px.com/photo/66068697/cave-arch-by-dustin-lefevre
http://500px.com/photo/48537232/hot-bath-by-max-rive
http://500px.com/photo/29165673/bright-%7C-arches-by-ali-erturk
http://500px.com/photo/74914783/field-of-gold-dreams-by-ian-helling-pga
http://500px.com/photo/52463648/68-degrees-north-by-stian-klo
http://500px.com/photo/79520935/sunset-in-bergen-by-attilio-ruffo
http://500px.com/photo/11036915/sweet-reality-%7C-cohasset-ma-by-lorenzo-montezemolo
http://500px.com/photo/35611930/the-rock-by-roger-raad
http://500px.com/photo/39665312/the-confluence-by-sapna-reddy
http://500px.com/photo/52853482/untitled-by-siewlam-wong

Oh, and um, one of the hallmarks of HDR images is they lack any kind of EXIF metadata when uploaded to photo sites like 500px. Any time you DO have EXIF, it pretty much guarantees that the image is a single shot. Another indication is a complete lack of any kind of funky layering or movement in clouds...even when doing quick successive shots with HDR, there is always cloud movement. Another BIG indicator of a single shot vs. HDR is the complete lack of water motion or funky water layering when exposure time is less than 1s (at and above 1s, your going to get a slight amount of water motion, as expected). 

So, this time around, I've linked a bunch of D800 single-frame shots that include clouds AND water...none of which exhibit any of the artifacts of HDR processing. 

Still think Canon sensors have the same kind of dynamic range as Exmor?


----------



## jrista (Aug 25, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > What, exactly, is the calculation you use to determine Photographic DR? Or is the calculation simply: "Shoot a step wedge and judge visually whether you have X stops or Y stops of DR?"
> ...



The definition is incomplete and inconsistent. Dynamic range is the "range from the lowest level to the brightest level". That is an arbitrary definition. Technically speaking, the lowest level in every sensor is black, or ZERO. By EVERY definition of dynamic range, the range from zero to any number is INFINITY. So you are basically arguing that Canon sensors have infinite dynamic range...which is obviously false. 

You have to define what the lowest level is. So far, you, and everyone else who offers some description of "Photographic DR", has not defined how you determine the lowest level, from which you can then define a range from that to the white point. 

The lowest level is the noise floor, which in a digital sensor, is defined by the RMS of read noise. Sure, you can use NR algorithms to reduce the noise of images from Canon cameras. You can also use NR algorithms to reduce the noise in images from any other camera. You don't NEED to use NR to reduce the noise from cameras with Exmor sensors at ISO 100 (and 200)...and THAT is the point I'm trying to make. You can spend hours carefully reducing the noise present in a Canon image, however no matte how perfect your NR, it's still never going to be as good as a D800/D810/D600 image. At the same time, you could spend a few minutes reducing the noise present in a D800 image, and increase the gap again.

It doesn't really matter how you slice it. Less read noise means more dynamic range, but more usefully, it means more editing latitude. A lot more editing latitude. It really doesn't necessarily mean there is any difference whatsoever in noise levels or quality in the midtones through highlights. That's purely photon shot noise, unaffected by read noise, so there won't be any difference. The key here is the fact that less read noise means cleaner, more recoverable shadows. And it means you can shoot directly into the sun, not completely blow the sun out, and STILL recover the foreground detail without any issues with noise. Show me any Canon camera that can do that in a single shot. Even with NR, show me something that can lift the foreground shadows of a photo shot directly into the sun by five or six stops.

I actually have some examples of my own, since I was just out shooting sunflowers, with the sun behind them as it set. Soon as I get them imported, I'll share some examples...putting my 5D III in the best light possible, and also trying to do the same thing as a D800 can do...expose for the sun, and lift the shadows to recover all the detail in the foreground. I'll even run it all through DeNoise 5, and it still won't be as good.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


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



You're now showing your inexperience in post processing Jon. You're assuming that these guys would be using HDR software if they were indeed HDR. In fact your whole argument for them being single exposure shots is based on the inclusion of EXIF, instead of using your eyes. 

Keep posting images like these as proof of the D800s superior DR. You gave me a good laugh this morning. ;D


----------



## robbinzo (Aug 25, 2014)

Recently we had some family portraits done. They were stunning.
Of course I was interested in the Pro's gear. He used a 5D mark I with 24-105L lens.

So the point is that yes it's nice to have new gear with all these whistles and bells and nit pick about what we think Canon should or shouldn't do but at the end of the day even someone making a living in this game can use fairly old gear and get good results.

I'm not saying that the 5D mark I is right for sports etc but do we really need the latest and greatest gear?

It made me realise the importance of technique over gear.


----------



## jrista (Aug 25, 2014)

Sporgon said:


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



I'm glad you had a good laugh, however, my "whole" argument was actually based on _more _than _just _EXIF data. My "whole" argument included the fact that none of these images show the kind of cloud or water artifacts that occur with HDR as well. I mean, YOU GUYS YOURSELVES, specifically Neuro, have made that very argument...that HDR is useless when water is present, because you get ghosting. Did you even look at any of the images I linked? If so, then who is showing their ignorance about post-processing now? 

You guys can deny it as much as you want, but it doesn't change the facts. It is possible to capture the sun, without it being totally blown, and still recover the foreground with very low noise (and not a hint of banding or other unsightly noise characteristics), in a single shot with a D800. I did not believe it was possible a couple years ago (when the only real example of it was Mikael posting incredibly crappy photos of god only knows what trying to prove it here on CR), but there are now FAR too many examples of this very thing being done with the D800 in countless photos posted online. Not just examples, but artistic photographs.

This has nothing to do with my ability to post process a photo, or recognize how one was processed. It has everything to do with denial.  There is a MASSIVE difference in editing latitude between a D800 and a 5D III, or any other Canon camera. MASSIVE. It's two stops. That means FOUR TIMES as much recoverable shadow data is recorded in a D800 RAW file. If you guys really can't see the difference, can't recognize the facts when they are sitting right in front of your face...well, it's no wonder no one here is interested in demanding that Canon do something about their sensor technology. No one even understands WHY they would ask for such a think in the first place, because they are ignorant of the reality of the difference between a Canon sensor and an Exmor.

This has NOTHING to do with DXO here, BTW. *Just to be very clear*. This has everything to do with WHAT PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE ACHIEVING IN REAL LIFEa with the D800. I posted actual _real world, *artistic *photographic examples_, not some lab test of a step wedge or a bunch of numbers on paper (things you guys are often ragging on me about) and you guys are STILL denying it. Well...I guess what they say is true. Denial is the most predictable of human behaviors...


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 25, 2014)

@jrista; when you e mail Canon demanding that they improve their sensor's IQ be sure to include those 500px images as an example of what the D800 and do


----------



## canonic (Aug 25, 2014)

If this camera has same (and no more) DR as 70D or 7D i'll pass this one ... again. I am sick of DR limitation on Canon cameras!


----------



## canonic (Aug 25, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> @jrista; when you e mail Canon demanding that they improve their sensor's IQ be sure to include those 500px images as an example of what the D800 and do



Canon knows for sure about its DR limitations, they dont need any proof. If anyway, then, Sonys A7R sales are the proof.


----------



## jrista (Aug 25, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> @jrista; when you e mail Canon demanding that they improve their sensor's IQ be sure to include those 500px images as an example of what the D800 and do



I'll be sure to. Although I'm quite certain Canon knows about their own limitations. I'm not worried they don't know. I'm frustrated by the fact that they haven't done anything about it, because I am sure they know. Worse, given the patents they've been granted recently, they seem to have technology that would solve the problem (and have had it for years, most of the filing dates were at least a couple years ago)...they just aren't using it.


----------



## Woody (Aug 25, 2014)

All this endless debate about dynamic range and camera sensors remind me of a similar situation nearly a decade ago. Back then, Canon CMOS sensors clearly ruled the high ISO arena. Yet, you'll run into countless arguments by Nikon/Olympus/Pentax/Minolta users: 

(i) who needs sensors with high ISO performance when there is always the flash, and Canon's flash system is deemed inferior

(ii) Canon images in comparison to those produced by Sony sensors are 'too waxy, buttery and smooth'

(iii) careful NR is all one needs

Ten years later, we are back with our places switched. ;D


----------



## Woody (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> ... given the patents they've been granted recently, they seem to have technology that would solve the problem (and have had it for years, most of the filing dates were at least a couple years ago)...they just aren't using it.



Can this be related to the new plants Canon set up in Japan and Taiwan? It's possible they have run into production problems.

On a side note, Canon has indicated their plans to automate most of their production process. Some people have taken this as a sign that they will switch to mirrorless cameras once the plants are ready...


----------



## Woody (Aug 25, 2014)

canonic said:


> Canon knows for sure about its DR limitations, they dont need any proof. If anyway, then, Sonys A7R sales are the proof.



To be fair, I don't think the Sony A7 sales is that great. Certainly not according to BCNRanking and Amazon bestseller lists. Mind you, Sony is selling lots of NEX and A6000 cameras though.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 25, 2014)

These 5Ds must have been specially modified;

http://500px.com/photo/37646388/land-of-the-setting-sun-by-robert-bynum
http://500px.com/photo/37251814/cape-arago-orcas-by-robert-bynum
http://500px.com/photo/69529953/the-golden-triangle-by-sairam-sundaresan
http://500px.com/photo/73747351/walt-whitman-+-freedom-pier-by-darren-loprinzi
http://500px.com/photo/59451838/baladrar-by-pedro-josé-benlloch-nieto


----------



## Aglet (Aug 25, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> These 5Ds must have been specially modified;
> 
> http://500px.com/photo/37646388/land-of-the-setting-sun-by-robert-bynum
> http://500px.com/photo/37251814/cape-arago-orcas-by-robert-bynum
> ...



the first 2 look like sharp line ND grads


----------



## Aglet (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> edit...
> This has NOTHING to do with DXO here, BTW. *Just to be very clear*. This has everything to do with WHAT PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE ACHIEVING IN REAL LIFEa with the D800. I posted actual _real world, *artistic *photographic examples_, not some lab test of a step wedge or a bunch of numbers on paper (things you guys are often ragging on me about) and you guys are STILL denying it. Well...I guess what they say is true. Denial is the most predictable of human behaviors...



Golly Jon, how'd you end up in this scrap? 

here's one of my examples from 2 years ago that's a nice match for your sun-water example.
i could have pushed the foreground even lighter but then it looked phoney, not noisy.
Shots like this, and the extreme ease of post-processing, is why I dumped most of my Canon gear and went with Exmor-based goodies. i like shooting into the sun! I don't like spending a lot of time mucking around with NR software if I can easily avoid it. ... Now I can, since 2012.

www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8105.msg161888#msg161888

and here's another, the shadowed bank and tree-trunks were far too dark in the as-shot image to make the shot look interesting. Was also the 14mm end of 14-24, FWIW.

www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9082.msg172770#msg172770

to steal the plot line from a commercial...

money spent on changing over, a few $k difference.
effort in learning the new system, mild to moderate

time and hassle avoided, priceless


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 25, 2014)

Aglet said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > These 5Ds must have been specially modified;
> ...



Don't think so; not the first one anyway. The give away in the first one is the really bad lateral chromatic aberrations caused by some severe overexposure during one of the stages of the pictures completion.


----------



## jrista (Aug 25, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> These 5Ds must have been specially modified;
> 
> http://500px.com/photo/37646388/land-of-the-setting-sun-by-robert-bynum
> http://500px.com/photo/37251814/cape-arago-orcas-by-robert-bynum
> ...



Well, tough to consider those single shots when the descriptions read like:

"Combination of three shots taken a few minutes apart. One exposure for the sky, one for the water and rocks, and another to capture the orcas." (Second link.)

The third one clearly has an artificial sun.

The fourth appears to use a GND, and also appears to have an artificial sun. 

The fifth one also appears to use a GND, and still has very deep shadows in the foreground.

The only one there that seems to be a legit single shot is the first one.


Don't get me wrong. They are all excellent photos, wonderful pieces of art. However, they still aren't the same as the D800 photos. They aren't showing off the capabilities of having massive dynamic range.


----------



## jrista (Aug 25, 2014)

Aglet said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > edit...
> ...



I mentioned that I wanted more DR, and that I thought Canon was screwing themselves into the ground by ignoring the massive differences between themselves and...just about everyone else. I'm now a DRone.  Guess that's all it takes. 

Fine with me, though. I'll pick up a D810 and a 14-24 at some point for my landscapes (it's really tough, buying for both terrestrial and astro photography...you really pick and choose what to buy and when...so God only knows when I'll actually buy the darn thing.) I'm sure I'll be happy with it as well...it's not like landscapes need a kick-ass AF system, or even a meter. I won't be holding the camera, it'll be on a tripod. And so long as live view works, and so long as I can tether the darn thing and use my tablet as a giant live view screen...I won't have a major problem with the ergonomics or menu system.

I'm just tired of waiting for Canon to get off their ass and produce the camera I REALLY want with high DR and high megapixels. I'd MUCH prefer it be Canon, but I just don't think it's going to happen. Not within the next couple of years anyway.



Aglet said:


> here's one of my examples from 2 years ago that's a nice match for your sun-water example.
> i could have pushed the foreground even lighter but then it looked phoney, not noisy.
> Shots like this, and the extreme ease of post-processing, is why I dumped most of my Canon gear and went with Exmor-based goodies. i like shooting into the sun! I don't like spending a lot of time mucking around with NR software if I can easily avoid it. ... Now I can, since 2012.
> 
> ...



Yeah, it's the ease of processing that is so appealing. I've done more than my fair share of NR. Hell, I've used some of the most advanced tools on earth for performing NR with astro and PixInsight. I really hate it. I spend so many freakin hours removing noise from my photos...and when you can take many dozens or hundreds of photos in a single outing, and so many of them are good compositionally and everything...having to spend time mucking around with banding and color blotches and whatnot just gets OLD. Really OLD. And it never measures up. There is still grain, there is still a loss of color fidelity, there is still a loss of detail (often a significant loss). I'm just tired of it. I love the 5D III for wildlife, and assuming I can find any more birds this year (it's been a bit of a dead year for birds), I'm sure it will do more fine for birds as well. But landscapes? It's not really any better than the 5D II. It still has banding, and the color blotchiness seems even worse. Really not what I expected. I'll probably be doing a LOT of HDR until I find the right time to pick up a D800. (And even with HDR...that isn't perfect either...you still have to deal with blending artifacts, ghosting, you can't HDR merge anything with moving water in it, fast moving clouds tend to look funky in an HDR merge, etc. etc.)

Maybe the 5D IV will finally be the camera...but...I just don't have any confidence Canon is particularly interested in serving any market other than action. Action shooters are a huge market...but they aren't the sole market, and Canon definitely seems to be ignoring them for the time being.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 25, 2014)

unfocused said:


> No. You attributed Neuro's quote to me and then apparently couldn't figure out to attribute my real quotes to me.



I just quickly quoted something that you said you agreed with and it's been a horrible two days and i'm tired and worse and didn't tkae the time to nest his quote and your agreement.




> So, ...., I'm with Neuro on this one.



yeah exactly
was it so terrible I didn't make it explicitly clear that those were his words that you said something like you could not ahve said better yourself when I just fired off a quick response? it's not an official report and having you plagiarism his words didn't think it was the end of the world
have more importnat matters than camera nonsens on my mind now anyway, stuff that i really care about deeply for real


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 25, 2014)

Woody said:


> To be fair, I don't think the Sony A7 sales is that great. Certainly not according to BCNRanking and Amazon bestseller lists. Mind you, Sony is selling lots of NEX and A6000 cameras though.



Always really difficult to get sales figures from any camera company. But according to Kakaku (even more telling than Amazon sales as it covers much wider in Japan) seems SONY's A7 is doing really well. 

Generally I think Japan likes the small format cameras somewhat more than the US with Europe maybe somewhere in between (?).

EDIT: Forgot to add that for some time Nikon is selling better than Canon in Japan. An interesting reversal compared to previously. That Japanese consumers are very prone to switch to have the "newest" and "brightest" electronics has certainly contributed to this.


----------



## PicaPica (Aug 25, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> EDIT: Forgot to add that for some time Nikon is selling better than Canon in Japan. An interesting reversal compared to previously. That Japanese consumers are very prone to switch to have the "newest" and "brightest" electronics has certainly contributed to this.



source?

last time i checked BNC the most sold DSLR in japan was a canon kiss outselling the NIKON on place two about 2 times. sorry but i don´t find the specific article anymore. but i remember it was 20.x million vs. 10.x million.

but there is this:

http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-undisputed-leader-market-shares-dslr-compact-cameras-japan-bnc-ranking/

so i am curious what your source is and what "for some time" means?


----------



## JimKarczewski (Aug 25, 2014)

I'd like to know why Nikon is the only one that will put Voice Annotation in other cameras than their flagship?

If the 7DII doesn't have annotation (and I don't want to fake it like I see so many do using the "video record" which will not work too good in PhotoMechanic like an audio file would, then I'll just save my pennies and wait for the 1DxII or whatever it is. 

It's just annoying that a feature like that isn't available unless you want to drop $6700. :'(


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2014)

canonic said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > @jrista; when you e mail Canon demanding that they improve their sensor's IQ be sure to include those 500px images as an example of what the D800 and do
> ...



And...there's _my_ morning laugh. ;D




PicaPica said:


> so i am curious what your source is and what "for some time" means?



Three years ago I was in Narita Airport (on the way to Beijing), and I saw 8 Nikon cameras but only 3 Canon cameras. So, Nikon has been ahead in Japan for at least three years.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Diltiazem said:
> 
> 
> > —snip—
> ...



+1


----------



## Woody (Aug 25, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> EDIT: Forgot to add that for some time Nikon is selling better than Canon in Japan. An interesting reversal compared to previously. That Japanese consumers are very prone to switch to have the "newest" and "brightest" electronics has certainly contributed to this.



Not according to BCNRanking for the first half of 2014.

I am also curious about your source of info. Granted BCNRanking does not cover small dealers. So, I am wondering if there is anything better than BCNRanking.

Certainly when it comes to worldwide sales, Canon has been leading the pack for interchangeable cameras in the past few years.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 25, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelHodges said:
> ...



I think ecosystem is important for people knowing they have a system which will be around in years to come and will grow with them.

I also think (uk only) that the average sales assistant would not be able to tell you any differences between sensors in the cameras they sell. I don't read uk magazines any more, so would be interested to know how many of them highlight the problem with read noise at low ISO.

It is funny, I remember with both the 5D and the 1ds trying to pull the exposure up and seeing the noise and concluding oops, sensor limitation. Only the internet and places like dpreview forums and then here, educated me better. Fortunately for Canon, their largest % of buyers do not research on the internet, or are not affected....


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



JRista, it's a nice picture - irrespective of the body. I think if I was there, then I probably would have done an HDR, but when I get back home I will check and see if I have anything similar. I suspect if I do, then there will be less detail in the shadows, so I do appreciate where you are coming from.

I guess I have got used to filters and HDR, and perhaps become resigned to that fact. Anything which reduces the post processing effort is definitely worth it. I personally will wait till the 5d IV and 1dx mk ii are announced, as I think. Canon know they are not addressing landscape photographers completely. I think their focus was rightly on the bigger markets - wedding with the mk iii, and sports/nature with the 1dx and now the 7d mk ii. If in 2015 there's not some improvements then I may look again at an alternative body - hopefully one which I can retain my canon glass on... If I don't travel abroad then I tend to take nature and landscape kit (oops, 2 bags). Abroad just one bag, so mixing canon and another brand would limit my choices)....


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 25, 2014)

Aglet said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > These 5Ds must have been specially modified;
> ...



Agree the 2nd one, in fact the Orca looks fake... Probably cause with a long exposure unless they weren't moving it would be blurred.

On the first one, had you used a grad, then they would have had to clean up the rocks, I could not see stepped tonal change in them...


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 25, 2014)

Stu_bert said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



I'm sure the Orca is fake ! Seriously these were just the first ones I came to, I'm not saying they are perfect by a long way.

But the point is, look at the exposure of the first one ! The data has been taken from the background (master) layer.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



I'm not sure everyone is denying it. I think it needs to be put in perspective that it is not necessarily a major issue, it does not mean Canon is a dinosaur ready for extinction, and that those people who use Canon are not 2nd class citizens.

I do not dispute that Nikon bodies have more DR and edit latitude. I completely understand Jon's frustration and agree with those that state post processing is more effort inside when you should be outside. I, like many others have experienced the read noise issue, and as I said above you try to work around it. But, I personally take a lot of landscapes in the so called blue hour or twilight. I prefer the look. I also have sunset / sunrise shots but not every shot I take I want to show the complete tonal range. Sometimes I want to direct the viewer to a specific part. DR is a tool that I use in my shots. I often darken areas in a shot with less DR than a Canon sensor can handle exactly because I don't want the full range.

As I said, we need to keep it in perspective.... No dispute Nikon / Sony has the lead. No issue that there are people here who have either both, or have jumped completely to Nikon (curious as to why they are still here, but hey it's free  ). People are free to chose, free to move, free to discuss. If we could leave the hyperbole's behind no matter which camp you are in


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 25, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



Your eyes are better trained than mine. I'm looking on an iPad mini, I can see boosted colours in the background, a tone curve, but I'm not sure I can see anything else. And I mean the first part in a non-sarcastic, offensive manner- I don't see anything really "out"...


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Three years ago I was in Narita Airport (on the way to Beijing), and I saw 8 Nikon cameras but only 3 Canon cameras. So, Nikon has been ahead in Japan for at least three years.


interesting.....

I was at a craft show yesterday and saw three Nikons and only one Canon. It appears that Nikon has also captured the sheep and wool segment of the DSLR market.

I am sure that both of our observations are statistically significant


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


> ...Canon's sensor is a major issue.
> 
> And why are people still denying it?
> 
> ...I (and anyone else) is an idiot for not thinking Canon's sensors are good enough.



Here's the thing...Canon's sensors *are* good enough. Good enough to produce stunning images. Good enough to produce award-winning images. Good enough be part of the camera system chosen by a majority of photographers worldwide for the past 11 years. 

The fact that they aren't good enough _for you_ and a small number of other people certainly doesn't indicate that Canon's sensor is a 'major issue'. The only major issue is your mistaken perception of the severity of a couple stops of low ISO DR in terms of broad impact.


----------



## fragilesi (Aug 25, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Three years ago I was in Narita Airport (on the way to Beijing), and I saw 8 Nikon cameras but only 3 Canon cameras. So, Nikon has been ahead in Japan for at least three years.
> ...



To make it more fair though I checked in my camera bag and study and it's 3 Canons to nil. That has to mean Canon sensors are better right? 

But, slightly more seriously, I'm making images with my 70d that I'm gaining great pleasure from. I know now that only using a crop with horror of horrors a Canon sensor inside means that my images are substandard but you know what I think I'm gradually learning to deal with it. It's tough but somehow I'm still managing to enjoy photography even with this dreadful kit that I'm using.

Maybe I need to join some kind of self help group.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 25, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> Maybe I need to join some kind of self help group.



The self help group is a bad idea....

Bruce: "Hello, my name is Bruce and I shoot with a Nikon D810"
Carol: "Hello, my name is Carol and I shoot with a Sony 7R"
Peter: "Hello, my name is Peter and I shoot with an Olympus Om-D EM1"
Me: "Hello, my name is Don and I shoot with a Canon 60D"
All: <GASP>
Me: "I also have an SX-50"
All: <silent and incredulous stares>
Me: "Why are you looking at me that way?"
Nancy: "GRAB YOUR TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS! "


----------



## fragilesi (Aug 25, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I need to join some kind of self help group.
> ...



Burn the heretic ;D


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 25, 2014)

Stu_bert said:


> No issue that there are people here who have either both, or have jumped completely to Nikon (curious as to why they are still here, but hey it's free  ).



Entertainment. There is always a "sporty" thread on canonrumors. ;D


----------



## psolberg (Aug 25, 2014)

looks like a good update. I think a lot of the expectations from crazy rumors were way off (12 fps? please guys  let's be realistic here). But overall a nice update if you're into cropped sensors. 



Lightmaster said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelHodges said:
> ...



The audience of the 810 is nature, landscape and studio photographer. Patterns which cause AA can be controlled in the studio, and in nature with say landscape or plants, it really isn't an issue most times. so this is why AA-filter deletes will be the de-facto standard going forward just as high MP, real vision DR, and low ISO will be. Yes some of it is marketing, but the reality is that the AA filter has a noticeable penalty on EVERY image you take even when the image wasn't really affected by AA artifacts. Plenty of very high end medium format sensors have been produced without AA filters and ultimately we now understand AA filters do more harm than good at this point for many applications which demand the most detail possible. Off course to maximize the AA-filter delete you have to have proper technique, in particular with high resolution cameras. But at least now that the AA filter out of the way, you can start to really make technique the only thing in the way to the sharpest image possible.

This is off course not every camera, and not every situation. Yes, there will be times when an image has moire patterns due to the lack of AA filtering. Some software can correct color patterns very well, other images won't be so lucky. Ultimately you have to understand your work. If your 99% of your images are taking a hit because of the AA filter just for the 1% you may rescue from aliasing, then you're being a fool for worrying about aliasing. Conversely if your work doesn't demand the most detail and often shoot in aliasing inducing environments, yeah get something with an AA filter.

The D800/E experiment is fascinating in this regard. Nikon gave people a choice and even made the E more expensive. But ultimately it received such huge positive reaction from customers that they decided AA-less was the way forward. As it turns out, most people's fears are just fears not based on the reality of what they actually shoot, and moire wasn't as much of a problem due for most. Sometimes change is needed for people to overcome their fears and while I was on the AA-filter skeptic camp before, after trying out filters without it I can say AA filter is a pair of training wheels that need to come off. Ultimately the test is on whether you can go back to an AA-filter equipped camera after living without one? Answers will change but for my personal experience, and seems from market research Nikon's audience knows: no freaking way. I wouldn't shoot an AA-filtered camera again because it hurts more than helps for me. If I do, it will be because I legitimately had to, and so far, never have had to.


----------



## Woody (Aug 25, 2014)

Jackson_Bill said:


> Very disappointing specs after so long a wait. IMO, minor evolutionary improvements.
> There's no reason to think that this sensor can do any better at high iso than the 7D and that was the most important thing I wanted to see.



I'll wait and see. In a previous CR2 rumor (http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/06/new-sensor-tech-in-eos-7d-mark-ii-cr2/):

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

If the above CR2 rumor is true, then the technology is probably something major. Hopefully, it's not some improved dual pixel AF with servo capability. DPAF without touch screen is useless to me.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 25, 2014)

Woody said:


> DPAF without touch screen is useless to me.



This is actually the one thing that still baffles me. Mind you, I really don't care because I almost never use live view. 

But if these specifications are true, it does seem like they have made a number of improvements for video users and I can't imagine not offering a touch screen for video. But then, I'm not a video person, so maybe it makes sense to others.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



At this rate the list should grow to about 100 people within the decade.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Jackson_Bill said:
> 
> 
> > Very disappointing specs after so long a wait. IMO, minor evolutionary improvements.
> ...



Or, you can do what I have done - skip a bunch of generations.

I'm looking to buy the 7D replacement. Do you think I'll see an evolutionary or revolutionary improvement compared to the camera I'm replacing, the 20D?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2014)

psolberg said:


> As it turns out, most people's fears are just fears not based on the reality of what they actually shoot, and moire wasn't as much of a problem due for most.



Still, I don't see substantial differences between D800 and D800E paired images after proper sharpening is applied. 

Personally, I see moiré in bird feathers often enough _despite_ the AA filter on my 1D X, not having an AA filter would be highly detrimental for me.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


> That is how Canon operates. Look at their product development over the last 11 years and you'll see the same minor increments from one model to the next. If you're looking for revolutionary development then you've bought into the wrong camera system/brand.



???

Except that 5DII was a sensational camera - touted and hailed for months before its release - and the best selling *FF* DSLR so far...
[edited as further down someone correctly noticed that I forgot to write that in the first para in the original post]

Before that the original 5D was the first ever affordable FF camera. With a class leading sensor.


----------



## yurophoto (Aug 25, 2014)

No Wifi? Booo I have the 70d with built in WiFi and use it every time I shoot. Love that feature, if they don't put it into the camera Ill be bummed. Everything else looks great tho.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > As it turns out, most people's fears are just fears not based on the reality of what they actually shoot, and moire wasn't as much of a problem due for most.
> ...


Come on Neuro, you know that you can see the difference at optimal aperture, welded to a 200lb tripod, in a studio, with lights cranked up - well at least at 200% magnification it's there and _might _be seen in massive prints 

Personally, I was hoping for more from the D800E, but even on Nikon's D800/E website page, it's hard to see much difference in the rocks & moss.

Also, I have the same issue with my feathers in photos and appreciate the moire filter in DxO which I just used this weekend. It works quite well and is there thanks to the D800E, though I wonder how well it works on D800E files.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 25, 2014)

PicaPica said:


> source?



Your laziness hardly merits a response. Please read what I write:

1) Kakaku - that collects virtually all Japanese on-line sales into one portal. 
2) I write about all SLR sales - not the sale of a single camera model

SLR stats on first page at Kakaku:
http://kakaku.com/camera/digital-slr-camera/

Follow Kakaku if you want to know whats hot and not in Japan!


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 25, 2014)

Just noticed some things (this is about high ISO):

70D is about 1/6th of a stop better than the 7D.
6D is about 1/2 stop better than the 70D per unit of sensor area.
(separately), the 6D is about 2/3 of a stop better than the 7D per unit of sensor area (consistent).

This means, it's possible just using the same level of performance as the 6D to do about 2/3 of a stop better at high ISO than the 7D. If they could do a little better (this 6D isn't brand new), maybe we could expect between 2/3 of a stop and 1 stop better performance at high ISO (in raw) from the 7D replacement.

That would be quite good, in my opinion, if they could achieve it.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 25, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson_Bill said:
> ...



Me too! Would be a replacement for the 40D in my case - if IQ is much better.

To Jackson_Bill : I think the specs look really impressive ... for sports and other action related photographers! For me, remote operability with wifi is missing to make that camera perfect including that I think that there will no high DR sensor / readout available.

So it might be possible that I skip this model again and go for a 6D or ... let's see.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 25, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > That is how Canon operates. Look at their product development over the last 11 years and you'll see the same minor increments from one model to the next. If you're looking for revolutionary development then you've bought into the wrong camera system/brand.
> ...


Wouldn't the 5DII be the best selling FF DSLR? The T3I outsells it like crazy


----------



## NancyP (Aug 25, 2014)

I have to say that I had expected a bit more, but the real proof is in the product, not in the specs. I don't expect this camera to be an 800/810. I want an action APS-C. It would seem that 10 fps, f/8 center point, and advanced AF system would be all that I could want. Buffer size for RAWs? That is important to me as well. Non-matching cards - annoying - I would think that it would be just as fast and would certainly be more convenient to use two fast cards of the same type. New battery - annoying, unless it has slightly higher voltage than the current LP-E6. I use the LP-E6 in my current two Canons, the 60D and 6D, and I get up to 1,000 shots per charge. I consider that to be darn good, and why putz with "darn good" unless there is something significantly improved about the new model. 

Bottom line: this seems like a good action camera spec list. That's what I want out of this camera. I am getting good landscape images out of the 6D, and I don't think that at this time I need anything more than the 6D. 

The question for those who feel like switching from the 7D to the Nikon equivalent, whatever it will be called, is: which of the new action APS-C cameras, Canon 7D2 or Nikon, has the best operability overall for action photography - that includes ergonomics, AF quality for the situations that the user will be shooting, burst speed, buffer size and speed to empty buffer, lenses available (and for what price), lenses the prospective buyer may already have on board - sensor is not the only issue, and in fact the sensor needs only to avoid the banding seen in the 7D - sensor doesn't have to equal the performance of an equivalent FF, ain't gonna happen. 

Right now I am heavily invested in Canon system, and not minded to make a change. If I made a change, it would be to the 810, which is a landscape camera. For the time being, I would like to improve my skills before I worry about a new landscape camera. I think that a new 7D2 will be the cheapest single way to improve my bird photography keeper rate, given that a new camera to replace a 4 year old one is not unreasonable, and I get more mileage from my existing 400mm f/5.6L with an APS-C camera than with FF camera. The other option would be to buy a longer lens AND a camera with fast burst rate. Hmm....$2k vs $12k+. Not a hard decision here.


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 25, 2014)

It seems the fad today is to look at sensor performance in a vacuum. Everyone has their quirks, Nikon does seem to be fixing some of those, but they still have them.
Even if Canon never changed their sensors again, Nikon would still have to try and compete with the 20 year old 400f5.6. Funny that they haven't bothered yet.
I'm quite comfortable with the system I have.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 25, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson_Bill said:
> ...


Those people who want to see great improvements in picture quality, must exchange your camera after 3 or 4 cycles of image sensor technology. 
He will see a revolutionary difference? 

In Canon land, 70d will crush the old 20D at ISO1600 but do not see a big difference in ISO200. 

In Nikon land, D7100 will crush the old D70 at any ISO setting. :

My conclusion is that the images produced by Nikon DSLR evolved more because in 2004 were more outdated.


----------



## whothafunk (Aug 25, 2014)

i'm pretty confident the 7D successor will deliver in AF and sport department, i just really hope it will also deliver some improvements in ISO department. Digic6 should bring something to the table, hoping for 2/3 - 1 stop ISO improvement over 70D.


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 25, 2014)

Firstly, let me say that I do not have an engineering background or understanding that half of you folks do but I'm a little amused at the amount of damnation for a camera that nobody has even seen yet.

I know exactly what I want in the 7Dii but I guess it'll be different to every other Canon user's personal want list and as Canon are not in the business of Build-Ur-Own-Camera, they will release the best camera possible to us that they can.

On the DR issue; sure, I'd love Canon to have the upper hand over Nikon but right now they just don't. I've been in this position before though, I was a Sega fan during their 16bit war with Nintendo. 64 colours vs 256, mode 7. Street Fighter II was better on the SNES and yet, I still played games rabidly, day in, day out and loved every minute of it.

So once again, I'm not an engineer, heck, I'm only a very average photographer but I will use every moment I can to take photos because I friggin' love it!


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 25, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Firstly, let me say that I do not have an engineering background or understanding that half of you folks do but I'm a little amused at the amount of damnation for a camera that nobody has even seen yet.
> 
> I know exactly what I want in the 7Dii but I guess it'll be different to every other Canon user's personal want list and as Canon are not in the business of Build-Ur-Own-Camera, they will release the best camera possible to us that they can.
> 
> ...



It does seem to happen a lot. Remember all the people poo-pooing the 6D when its specs were released? Many of those here advocated for the 5DII over the 6D, but you don't see many of those in favor of the 5DII anymore. If Canon did its homework, the 7DII should sell well.


----------



## Vgramatikov (Aug 25, 2014)

Hi all 
I m mainly wildlife photographer.
www.500px.com/Vgramatikov

I have one different opinion about sport crop sensor cameras.
It is indeed very strange a sports FF camera to have 16 and 18 mp but crop sensors to have 20/24mp.
Sounds quite misunderstanding...

For most wildlife and sport users shooting sport and widlife with 20/24mp sensor crop camera means simply a lot of post processing. Nothing more...yeah it is great for landscapes and so one. But for natural light sport fast moving or wildlife needs this is totally no sense. We all need not more than 16mp here with bigger buffer and better ISO/DR performance. Cause when we shoot at 1600-3200 iso it is huge post to get good 10-12 final image. But this is impossible nowadays.

So... most important is frame rate and AF. So 7d2 will give us both. Bigger buffer ! I`m sure with dial 6 processors it will be done! Better body than 70d and similar to 5d3 done! So there is one thing missing. The sensor. Nobody wants to create a brand new sensor for specific users base on crop sensor camera. They have to be cheap after all... So current 20mp in 70d witch i have now (My 7d dead and i buy 70d) is enough. May be better 1600-3200 iso is required! Because with 5.6 lens like mine 400 5.6 it is very hard to make good IQ image winter time. We shoot constantly at 800-1600 iso at the edge of the shutter speeds required. So it make sense to say...ok if you want more go for 5d3 and 500/4IS ))

So sensor is the main market level separation here. Sony sensors is not better buy much after 800-1600 iso. They are better at 100-800 iso in DR case. After 800-1600 is equal to the canon 20mp sensor. So our market do not offer better sensors for high iso shooting with crop sensors. Just we may want at least little better performance at 1600-3200 range. May be usable 3200 shots and good 1600 iso. I have a lot of great images at 1600 and 2000 iso with my 7d and my 70d. When the image is right and post is good 1600 iso is not big problem. 3200 iso depends from the scene and light source. 

So think twice before you want something... ))

Sorry for the bad english !


----------



## shobytza (Aug 25, 2014)

no cfast 2.0 ? c'mon canon


----------



## jaayres20 (Aug 25, 2014)

I shoot with a 1DX and a 5D3 and I have shot many many weddings under all kinds of lighting conditions. I can think of only a few times where I wished I had more DR in blown out highlights of a wedding veil in direct sunlight. 99% of the time, if I expose correctly then it isn't a problem for me. So DR isn't my concern.

However, I used to own a 7D and I absolutely hated the color. It was nowhere near the color I was getting with my full frame. I sold it and stuck with my 5D2. I haven't shot with a crop sensor since so I am not sure it things have changed recently. I love the idea of having a 7D2 at weddings because of the extra zoom it will provide me in those big catholic churches were I am stuck in the balcony. I would by this camera the day it comes out if I knew that it would have good/natural colors. ISO I am sure is good enough @ 6400 and that is the highest I shoot. I would also love the sensitivity of the center focal point to be as sensitive as the center point of the 6D. That is a truly amazing thing. I wish the 5D3 or 1DX had the same sensitivity in theirs.


----------



## jrista (Aug 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



Oh, don't get me wrong. I've never denied the editing latitude advantage of the D800. I've repeatedly calculated it on these forums. Also don't get me wrong here, I still have no trust of the majority of DXO's numbers. My desire for more editing latitude does NOT, and NEVER WILL, mean I ever have a change of heart about DXO. I have no problem with someone saying there is a 4x shadow tonality advantage for the D800. I do have a problem with someone saying there is an 8x shadow tonality advantage for the D800. That's 8x vs. 4x, a factor of two difference. Or a 100% margin of error. That is a LOT! DXO says the latter, which is only possible in one very specific circumstance using a very specific algorithm that does not reflect the reality of things. DXO lives in a dreamland, and I still choose to ignore their results. 

You and I, Dilbert, have always butted heads over DXO. We probably always will. As for Exmor...well, I've been trying to shoot Sunflowers at sunset for a while...never quite succeeding with GNDs and barely succeeding with HDR...and after having seen dozens of real-world D800 photos shot strait into the sun. I'm just sick and tired of waiting for Canon to do something about their noise problem. If the D800 can do it, fine, I'll get a D800. Enough wrestling with ISO 100 noise (which, as I've said, is surprisingly bad on the 5D III, now that I've actually been using it for a few months...a lot worse than I expected, given how NOT so bad it is on the 7D, and how significantly better it is on the 6D...the 5D III is just....bleh....)


----------



## unfocused (Aug 25, 2014)

Vgramatikov said:


> Sorry for the bad english !



English may not be perfect, but your logic is pretty good and your pictures are fantastic.

I see it a little bit differently. If the rumor is true, I think Canon is offering a compromise that sacrifices a little resolution (20 mp vs. 24 mp) and will likely perform slightly better at moderately high ISO (800-3200). 

This is actually consistent with what Canon did with the 1DX, 5DIII and 6. After years of "winning" the megapixel war, they decided to concentrate on improved high ISO performance without continually bumping up the megapixel count. 

I actually commend them for having the courage to do this. It would have been very easy to offer a 24 mp sensor and just expect people to sacrifice higher ISOs with their APS-C camera and force customers to move to full frame for low light sensitivity. But, it seems very possible now that the 7DII will have decent performance at moderately high ISOs (of course it won't match a full frame).


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 25, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Firstly, let me say that I do not have an engineering background or understanding that half of you folks do but I'm a little amused at the amount of damnation for a camera that nobody has even seen yet.
> ...



Hehehe! I do remember how it was slated as a piece of crap. In fact, the very guy who told me he'll never exchange his 5D2 for a 6D, now has a 6D and sold the 5D2...

There are some mighty minds on these forums but against the collective of the Canon brains trust, those minds will only ever come a distant second. Who thought the Canon EF 16-35 f/4.0 L would be such an incredible lens because hey! Canon can't make a decent WA.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 25, 2014)

unfocused said:


> I actually commend them for having the courage to do this. It would have been very easy to offer a 24 mp sensor and just expect people to sacrifice higher ISOs with their APS-C camera and force customers to move to full frame for low light sensitivity. But, it seems very possible now that the 7DII will have decent performance at moderately high ISOs (of course it won't match a full frame).



For the billionth time, more pixels does NOT mean poorer performance at higher ISO.

In fact, the opposite is usually true.


----------



## jrista (Aug 25, 2014)

Stu_bert said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



First, I've never once said Canon users are second class citizens. ;P Guys like DILBERT and friends HAVE said that in the past, but I'm still a Canon user. Canon still kicks ass at high ISO, not just their cameras but the whole entire ecosystem. 

Here is the thing. I've been blindsided by how bad the 5D III low ISO performance is. My 7D was better, it simply lacked the frame size for good landscapes (which I hated, I was never able to get the compositions I wanted). The 7D had vertical banding, but other than that, it's noise was actually quite cooperative. The 6D also has FAR less color noise, and hardly any banding as far as I can tell (although I think, given my experience with the 5D III, I would need to use it first hand more to know for sure). The 5D III? It has banding (random crosshatch basically) AND the nastiest color noise I've seen since the 5D II. It's a lot of work to clean it up, so much so that I'm finding it is not worth the effort. The alternative is to use HDR for everything, however HDR has it's limitations as well. You have to deal with ghosting, and sometimes the inverse...you cannot remove ghosts as it causes posterization, so your stuck with one or the other. The solution to that it to take a hell of a lot more frames, but with clouds and/or water, that causes more problems with ghosting. It's a conundrum.

Now, if the rumored 7D II specs indicated Canon was releasing it with a 24mp APS-C sensor with improved DR...even by one stop? I'd have never said anything. I'd have kept defending Canon against the DXO hordes (well, I still will, no reason to stop combating bad science! ), and I'd have waited for the 5D IV. Because Canon would have been demonstrating they are making progress. However...the best rumors at the moment indicate Canon, once again, has not done a damnable thing about their low ISO DR. Not only that, it looks like they aren't even going to introduce a new sensor in a very hotly anticipated camera, one which many (I know it's not just myself) were hoping would get a competitive 24mp sensor, they are instead repurposing the sensor from the 70D. That just crushed my confidence in Canon as a company that is interested in photographic IQ, across the board. The fact that DPAF is the only sensor technology they seem to be messing with on a commercial stale reinforces my opinion that they are currently overly infatuated with video. That could change, but who the heck knows when. Without any confidence, I can't sit around and wait. We've all known for years now that Exmor has more DR. I've gone into extensive essay-style posts on WHY Exmor has better DR, how it's specific design, use of CP-ADC, digital CDS, and remotely located clock/PLL are the fundamental reason why it has better DR, it's not like I did not know. I'm just now at the point where I'm no longer going to wait for Canon to catch up (or, as I suspect is the case, they have already caught up, but have not actually employed the technology they have invented that would solve their IQ problems), and the only real alternative out there with good lenses (and the 14-24, as we all know, is excellent) is the D800/D810/D600.

So, why the heck should I keep waiting, when a D810 is right there, it already has everything I need, and is for sale on the market today? I don't like Nikon ergonomics, but I could solve my landscape photography problem today if I wanted to. I'd prefer to have a high DR Canon camera, but one simply does not exist, and no one has the first bleeding clue as to when it might potentially exist. So, I'm done waiting. I think everyone else who has been waiting and really wants more DR should stop waiting as well.


----------



## jrista (Aug 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > As it turns out, most people's fears are just fears not based on the reality of what they actually shoot, and moire wasn't as much of a problem due for most.
> ...



Yeah, lack of an AA filter is one reason to get a D800 instead of a D810. I guess you could always ever so slightly misfocus and force the lens to AA...but that's just a royal PITA, and it could make the image softer than if the darn thing just had an AA filter...

Heh, another reason to hope Canon extracts their head from their ass at some point and makes a high DR, high MP camera WITH an AA filter...it seems no one else is going to.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> So, why the heck should I keep waiting, when a D810 is right there, it already has everything I need, and is for sale on the market today?



Because you might only have to wait two weeks or so to see what Canon has been up to lately. At least that might give a clue as to future directions.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> Heh, another reason to hope Canon extracts their head from their ass at some point and makes a high DR, high MP camera WITH an AA filter...it seems no one else is going to.


I'm sure they will, it's just a matter of when, and the 7D II is most likely not going to be that camera.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



Past results are no guarantee of future performance.

Won't take long to add another data point.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 25, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> It does seem to happen a lot. Remember all the people poo-pooing the 6D when its specs were released? Many of those here advocated for the 5DII over the 6D, but you don't see many of those in favor of the 5DII anymore. If Canon did its homework, the 7DII should sell well.



+1. Here in the UK ( or should I say England & Wales  ) the 5DII used prices held up very well when the 6D was first released, but now they are dropping considerably. I would assume this is because 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating' , and people are finding the eating pretty good. 

Strange how this happens with Canon gear. I think it's because they are relatively conservative in new releases, but those new releases turn out to be solid, well sorted. Remember the introduction of the 70-300L ? People howled that it was no better than the non L - because it's paper specification was similar :. Remember the 24-70 f4 IS ? The 6D ? 

The only people who are complaining about the performance of the Canon sensors are those that are obsessing over the fabrication process. It's still 500um or whatever so there cannot have been any improvement......

Annoys the hell out of me.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



nothing has really been innovative in camera systems for the last 30+ years. what do you expect from an SLR? Canon had such a head starts on everyone once they get rolling int he digital era, everything else is really now diminishing returns.

or even a range finder based system - all of them are basically improvements on a past model.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous assertions I've seen.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > It does seem to happen a lot. Remember all the people poo-pooing the 6D when its specs were released? Many of those here advocated for the 5DII over the 6D, but you don't see many of those in favor of the 5DII anymore. If Canon did its homework, the 7DII should sell well.
> ...



it's amazing how some here think they know better than a company that literally spends billions in R&D per year.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 25, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> nothing has really been innovative in camera systems for the last 30+ years.



Here we go again - digital sensors, image stabilization, USM focusing, predictive servo autofocus, diffractive optics, zooms that are outstanding optically, video, on-sensor phase-detection AF.

Nothing innovative?


----------



## clchee (Aug 25, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> Fixed LCD, with no touch function.



I currently use a EOS 70D. I like the articulating LCD and touch function (especially for choosing
a focus point during video recording). Why would the 7DmII not have these features?


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > nothing has really been innovative in camera systems for the last 30+ years.
> ...



I meant camera body - how much more improvement of "innovative" can there really be in a camera body. it's going to look, smell, act the same, and have improvements upon a prior model.

is an d810 innovative? a d800? D600? even a A7 is that innovative? (like no one's done a FF sensor in a range finder class body before?) the A7S innovative? 

they are all simply rehashes and improvements on something else.

canon has done a ton; they took over a market with a ballsy move dropping the FD mount and moving to the EF mount, and produced some of the most innovative products when they could - simply put; it's hard to be innovative when you did it all in the past before anyone else and now go .. "what now?"

now if the 7D has entirely replaceable parts, multiple sensor backs, switchable viewfinders and open source firmware, well that may change my mind somewhat 

but in reality expecting canon to always be "innovative" when the industry on the whole really hasn't been is a stretch.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 25, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> it's amazing how some here think they know better than a company that literally spends billions in R&D per year.



+1

allow me to slightly change your statement:

it's amazing how, based on unsubstantiated rumours, some here think they know better than a company that literally spends billions in R&D per year.

It's also amazing how they can use the fact that Canon is one of the world's largest filer of patents to show that they are not innovative....


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 25, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > nothing has really been innovative in camera systems for the last 30+ years.
> ...



I think rrcphoto meant his comments to be ironic.........


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 25, 2014)

clchee said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Fixed LCD, with no touch function.
> ...



Don't believe it one way or the other until an official announcement is made. These rumours are just guesses...


----------



## wookiee2cu (Aug 25, 2014)

If these specs turn out to be true then this will be a great camera for sports shooters, curious as of to what the list price will end up being.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 25, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Hehehe! I do remember how it was slated as a piece of crap. In fact, the very guy who told me he'll never exchange his 5D2 for a 6D, now has a 6D and sold the 5D2...



Doesn't the 6D match or exceed the 5D Mark II's specifications in every way except for resolution (and only slightly lower in resolution)? It has much lower noise at high ISO, faster FPS, more autofocus points, many more features....


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



not really. i would love a camera company to do something totally radical. take a playbook out of thom hogan's thoughts on camera systems and surrounding ecosystems.

However I'm surprised people expect this level of "innovation" and think canon's doing nothing though - what more can they do that they haven't done already?


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 25, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Move to a 180ym process....... :-X


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 25, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



Digital sensors, predictive autofocus, video and on-sensor PDAF are all in the camera body.

Very, very few industries have totally new directions from one generation to the next. Isn't my Prius just some minor improvements on a Model T? They both have an IC engine and four wheels, they both are manufactured on an assembly line, etc.

Is a 787 really much different than a De Havilland Comet? They're both tube-on-wing designs with engines on the wings and a lower-case T-tail.

The multitude of incremental improvements in camera bodies that have accumulated since I bought my AE-1 are nothing short of stunning to me, and they enable me to take photos that were just not possible with the AE-1.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



and out side of a few "engineering" consultants that don't work at canon; how would we know that would improve it by what?

would a 180nm sensor all of a sudden make you feel like you could take better photos? would the assurance that the sensor used 90nm lithography all of a sudden open your eyes up to the nature of light around us, and explore details like no one has done before?

not to mention canon could develop down to 5nm lithography - today. if there was a fundamental need. they have the technology.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I totally agree. canon's releases have been well rounded, suited needs and incremental - I'm certainly not complaining about them.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 25, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



This time _I_ was being ironic


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



totally missed it


----------



## jrista (Aug 25, 2014)

Alright, time for some concrete evidence. Here is a 5-frame bracketed sequence I took yesterday of a sunflower field at sunset:







The shots were bracketed 2 stops apart. I was shooting directly into the sun, as you can see. Did I really want to? Well, kind of. More importantly, I HAD to. The sunflowers face east, towards the rising sun. To actually have sunflowers in my photos, I had to shoot directly into the sun. 

Here are the first, middle, and last images:














The first was exposed for the sun. The last was exposed for the foreground. Now, since everyone want's a fair comparison, I'm using the middle image from the 5-frame sequence as the "most fair" towards my 5D III. Here it is after processing it to extract the most detail possible:






This is a +3 stop exposure pull (lift), -100 highlights, -100 whites, +60 shadows. As you can see, the sun is blown, and it has some posterization around it. Here is a closeup of the sun:






Here is a closeup of the noise in the foreground:






That's not good noise. That's nasty noise. It's banded, red-shifted, and it is already getting blotchy. I also took the image exposed for the sun, and did a +5 stop exposure pull, -100 highlights, -100 whites, +75 shadows, +10 blacks:






In this shot, the sun is MUCH better, although it's still hot and overexposed in the end. However, the foreground...the foreground is absolutely atrocious. The 5D III can MAYBE handle a +3 stop pull, but it definitely can not handle a +5 stop pull. If one were to listen to dtaylor about Photographic DR, one would believe that Canon cameras are only within a third-stop of Exmor sensors...however, who on earth would consider the above image acceptable? Anyone? I mean, be truly honest here. 

Here is a close up comparison of the noise, color fidelity, and detail of the +5 pull, +3 pull, +3 pull denoised/debanded, and the last shot that was exposed for the foreground:






The +5 stop pull, as well as the +3 stop pull, both suffer from the fact that a lot of the detail is buried within the noise floor. I worked the +3 stop pull for about 10 minutes. I could probably reduce noise further, however I was already losing detail (look at the edges of some of the leaves deeper in the shadows of the +3 denoised...compare them with the +3 non-denoised and the full exposure...LOT of softening!!) I did not even bother to denoise the +5 stop pull...that is well beyond the capabilities of ANY Canon camera. Since most computer screens are 8-bit, a 3-stop pull is necessary to fully realize the 11 stops worth of DR in a Canon RAW, without lifting the read noise as well. Well, based on the samples here, even a 3-stop pull is kind of pushing it...the banding and color blotchiness is all read noise...photon shot noise exhibits as clean, random noise (of which there is definitely plenty, but it's mixed with read noise as well.) A 5-stop pull would be necessary to fully realize the 13 stops worth of DR that a D800 has. I don't think anyone honestly denies that Sony Exmor sensors have more DR. Aside from dtaylor's Photographic DR, the standard definition of Engineering DR, the ratio between the clipping point and the RMS of read noise (the read noise floor) indicates that Exmor sensors have a two-stop lead on Canon sensors. So...with a D800...I could have made this photograph in a single shot. Directly into the sun, underexposed by five stops, then lifted five stops.

Finally, here is the HDR merge:






I had problems with this. It was a 5-frame sequence, separated by 2 stops. I ran into problems with posterization around the sun, and even after the HDR merge, I could not fully realize the sun. I was able to recover the sky and all the other detail, but still not the sun. Given the nature of the posterization, I figure I would have needed at least a 9-frame sequence separated by 1 stop or less to produce a fine enough grade in the highlights around the sun to avoid posterization. Some HDR wizards would have probably shot 15 frames. Either way....it's more work. Getting a 15-frame sequence for HDR that does not run into problems with motion in the scene...the sunflowers moving in the wind, the clouds moving, even the sun moving as it sets, is more difficult. 

And, I could have gotten it in a single shot with a D800. Here is a single-shot sunflowers into the sunset shot with a D800 on 500px:

http://500px.com/photo/40685186/sunset-flowers-)-by-kenji-yamamura


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 25, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> looks pretty decent to me
> if there a some deals or sale down the road after the bleeding edge stampede dies off i might pick one up and leave it stuck on the tamron 150-600




+1


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > ...Canon's sensor is a major issue.
> ...



But why fight sooooo hard to make sure Canon stays behind in this regard forever? How is that a good thing? Sure for some it will never make any difference ever, but most have occasionally had some instant one of shot where the exposure came out wrong, with huge DR you can save it and probably most, at least once in a blue moon, have a shot that no matter what you do with what care won't come out as nicely, so even for them at least here and there it would help and there are some decent number who did hit the limitations fairly often and for whom it could make a decent bit of difference. Now sure you can take an infinite number of amazing shots with the Canon where the DR at low ISO makes zero difference, nobody says otherwise, but why fight soooo sooo hard to help insure that Canon never moves forward and all? Surely even you could make use of exmor quality low ISO at least once in a blue moon. Would you rather have that or, for some, bizarre, reason not?

And the way you mock and sometimes knowingly obfuscate, I mean why? To what good end for anyone?

And yeah for some it doesn't make any difference and sure you can simply just shoot the scnes and subjects where it doesn't matter and have fun taking an infinite number of stunning shots as is, but why fight so hard to not increase the chances that some will be able to shoot a much wider variety of subject types or that anyone won't be able to better rescue a shot where they did mess up.

It's clear that Canon won't bother unless they feel tremendous and heated pressure of every sort imaginable.
So let people go on about it and make a huge deal, the worst thing that could happen is canon finally decides to improve sensors and it makes no difference to you at all that they did, it's not like it would hurt you if they went to on sensor ADC.

It maybe not a crazy, insane freaking big deal, but it's pretty clear that Canon won't care unless everybody turns it into a crazy, insane freaking big deal, they won't bother otherwise.

If the 5D4 lacks in DR, I bet they will finally start feeling it even in sales a bit and maybe that and an internet whine fest of the likes never seen before could embarrass them into action. Or maybe not, but give a try and see.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 25, 2014)

psolberg said:


> looks like a good update. I think a lot of the expectations from crazy rumors were way off (12 fps? please guys  let's be realistic here). But overall a nice update if you're into cropped sensors.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



to each their own, i've definitely seen some of it show up in nature shots

(that said the degree to which it happens overall bothers me far less than say the lesser DR of the far more aliasing free 5D3 don't get me wrong, but I personally still hope canon sticks with AA and nikon goes back to offering it, at least for another couple rounds of MP increases)


----------



## eos650 (Aug 25, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Doesn't the 6D match or exceed the 5D Mark II's specifications in every way except for resolution (and only slightly lower in resolution)? It has much lower noise at high ISO, faster FPS, more autofocus points, many more features....



No. The 6D does exceed the 5D Mark II's in many most ways, but you are overlooking several that still favor the 5D Mark II. In addition to the higher resolution that you already mentioned, here are some others that come to mind:


Flash Sync: 6D 180th, 5D II 200th
Max Shutter: 6D 1/4000, 5D II 1/8000
Shutter rating: 6D 100,000, 5D II 150,000
Auto LCD Brightness: 6D No, 5D II Yes
Viewfinder: 6D 97%, 5D II 98%
Sync-cable connection: 6D No, 5D II Yes
Memory Cards: 6D SD, 5D II Compact Flash
Custom shooting modes: 6D Two, 5D II Three
Separate Joystick Controller: 6D No, 5D II Yes

They are both excellent cameras and seem to fit the same market. I personally would lean toward the 6D, but would be happy with either, if I didn't need to shoot action.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > As it turns out, most people's fears are just fears not based on the reality of what they actually shoot, and moire wasn't as much of a problem due for most.
> ...



for once I can agree with you 

I do think it a shame Nikon went AA-less only for the 810 and hope they add an 810a.
And I hope Canon does not follow the aa-less nikon/sony (imo) kool-aid (well maybe for say 5D7 or something, MP counts may be high enough then)


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> Alright, time for some concrete evidence. Here is a 5-frame bracketed sequence I took yesterday of a sunflower field at sunset



to be honest, you overpulled anyways compared to that D800 picture, and there's something "wrong" with that D800 one, especially the sunflower to the left of center - AND you're only seeing it as a very small image so you can't tell if / how there is any artifact happening as you blow it up either. and that sun doesn't look right on his shot either (unless that's a nuclear explosion that just went off)

point is, if you need 10EV of latitude such as this shot, it's always going to be tricky.

I would do the bracketting and a much finer level of merging the photos as your best bet (and with this guy's shot as well )

not to mention, something looks "false" about the entire thing anyways, it's too flat, there's no shadows - my mind looks at that and goes - what planet is this from where there's light bouncing back behind the sunset?


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 25, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Alright, time for some concrete evidence. Here is a 5-frame bracketed sequence I took yesterday of a sunflower field at sunset
> ...



How about this one then ? 

Look at all that wholesome DR ;D

http://www.pashadelic.com/en/users/5-kenji


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



and like i said, it still doesn't look good at all on the sony one either, and in reality we don't know how the original shot was done anyways.

it's a difficult shot either way with an ND grad - which is the right way to do that shot. (and btw, he lists grad filters in his equipment)

also if you find your camera of choice doesn't do the job and there is one that does - why the hell are you here?

(this always puzzled me)


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I love his work, however I suspect that Kenji will manage to do amazing work regardless of his camera of choice.

good photographers take great pictures. isn't that a surprise.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 25, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Just noticed some things (this is about high ISO):
> 
> 70D is about 1/6th of a stop better than the 7D.
> 6D is about 1/2 stop better than the 70D per unit of sensor area.
> (separately), the 6D is about 2/3 of a stop better than the 7D per unit of sensor area (consistent).



are you sure? 1/2 stop better than the 70D per unit of sensor area?? i though it was more like 1/8th?

anyway 2/3rds of a stop improvement for 7D SNR would be pretty impressive and I guess that much is theoretically possible, but I wouldn't be 100% counting on that.

I think the 5D3 was just over half stop better than 5D2 and the 7D was some degree better than the 5D2 (again talking per sensor area, not overall!) so I doubt the 5D3 is more than 1/4 to 1/6th better than the 7D per sensor area. The6D and 5D3 SNR seem to be about the same.

Maybe you mean high ISO DR and not the highly photon dominated SNR? The 6D did take a big step there over the other stuff. The 7D2 could easily have 2/3rds stop better high ISO DR than the 7D, easily.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 25, 2014)

whothafunk said:


> i'm pretty confident the 7D successor will deliver in AF and sport department, i just really hope it will also deliver some improvements in ISO department. Digic6 should bring something to the table, hoping for 2/3 - 1 stop ISO improvement over 70D.



Digic can't improve high ISO (unless you mean in cam jpgs and the NR algorithm)

1 stop will be tricky, people forget how good these cameras already at at high ISO for SNR and that the limits of physics are not all that far off, they are so good

of course more DR at high iso can help a lot too, since there is so little there now for most cams, it is entirely absolutely possible the 7D2 could end up with 2/3rds stop better DR at ISO3200 than the 7D, maybe even more.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 25, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Who thought the Canon EF 16-35 f/4.0 L would be such an incredible lens because hey! Canon can't make a decent WA.



I actually thought most people had high expectations for it actually.

People used to say Canon can't make a decent WA, but that was a few years back, before the 24-70 II, 24-70 f/4 IS, 24 2.8 IS, 28 2.8 IS, 17 T&S, 24 T&S II .


----------



## Click (Aug 25, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> People used to say Canon can't make a decent WA, but that was a few years back, before the 24-70 II, 24-70 f/4 IS, 24 2.8 IS, 28 2.8 IS, 17 T&S, 24 T&S II .



+1


----------



## Diltiazem (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> Alright, time for some concrete evidence. Here is a 5-frame bracketed sequence I took yesterday of a sunflower field at sunset:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No denying that Exmor sensor will do better in this situation, but don't expect miracle from them. If you lift 5 stops of shadow you end up with plenty of noise, color aberration and loss of detail. It will be something similar to your 3 stop recovery and denoise. The other thing that happens is that shadow lifted areas will be distastefully bland with lack of contrast and muted color. So, you will need more processing (selective contrast enhancement, color boosting, color correction etc) in addition to NR in the shadow lifted areas to make it presentable. You are looking at pretty small sized images from D800 (links you have provided so far), they don't tell you the full story. How do I know these? I have done literally hundreds of tests with my D600, 5DIII and 6D. When I am shooting against the sun and end up lifting around 5 stops of shadows (not always you need 5 stops though), it can take up 15 to 20 minutes to make something presentable with out of one D600 file.
Yeah, Exmor is better, but it is not as perfect as many people think. As I said in an earlier post if you need the best quality (shadow lifted areas as good as bright areas), other techniques are still better. 

When i first got my D600 I was lifting shadows right, left and center (and more ). It was like an obsession. I was intentionally looking for scenes that would need shadow lifting. After some time it wasn't fun anymore. Soon though, couple of things occurred to me. a) I wasn't doing photography anymore, I wad doing experiments only. b) In my kind of photography I very rarely needed extreme shadow lifting that Canon couldn't handle. After the realization fun in photography has returned and more than 90% of the time they are done with Canon gears. 
So, I would say if someone's work involves lot's of shadow lifting and if someone is not willing to do other techniques (filter, exposure blending etc), then Exmor will do a much better job than Canon. But don't expect miracles. Better doesn't mean perfect.


----------



## jrista (Aug 25, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I'm not sure what you think this proves. If you WANT more contrast, then there is nothing stopping you on the D800...you can have DR, or you can increase contrast...either way, it's a more capable device. If you NEED more shadow lifting capability, then there IS something stopping you on the 5D III. That's a really simple concept...I don't understand why no one gets it.


----------



## jrista (Aug 25, 2014)

Diltiazem said:


> No denying that Exmor sensor will do better in this situation, but don't expect miracle from them. If you lift 5 stops of shadow you end up with plenty of noise, color aberration and loss of detail. It will be something similar to your 3 stop recovery and denoise. The other thing that happens is that shadow lifted areas will be distastefully bland with lack of contrast and muted color. So, you will need more processing (selective contrast enhancement, color boosting, color correction etc) in addition to NR in the shadow lifted areas to make it presentable. You are looking at pretty small sized images from D800 (links you have provided so far), they don't tell you the full story. How do I know these? I have done literally hundreds of tests with my D600, 5DIII and 6D. When I am shooting against the sun and end up lifting around 5 stops of shadows (not always you need 5 stops though), it can take up 15 to 20 minutes to make something presentable with out of one D600 file.
> Yeah, Exmor is better, but it is not as perfect as many people think. As I said in an earlier post if you need the best quality (shadow lifted areas as good as bright areas), other techniques are still better.
> 
> When i first got my D600 I was lifting shadows right, left and center (and more ). It was like an obsession. I was intentionally looking for scenes that would need shadow lifting. After some time it wasn't fun anymore. Soon though, couple of things occurred to me. a) I wasn't doing photography anymore, I wad doing experiments only. b) In my kind of photography I very rarely needed extreme shadow lifting that Canon couldn't handle. After the realization fun in photography has returned and more than 90% of the time they are done with Canon gears.
> So, I would say if someone's work involves lot's of shadow lifting and if someone is not willing to do other techniques (filter, exposure blending etc), then Exmor will do a much better job than Canon. But don't expect miracles. Better doesn't mean perfect.



I never said the D800 was perfect. I also did not intentionally try to find a scene that my 5D III could not handle...I saw an awesome sunflower field just before sunset started, and I wanted to photograph it. Damn good thing I bracketed...

However, you made my argument for me:



Diltiazem said:


> If you lift 5 stops of shadow you end up with plenty of noise, color aberration and loss of detail.* It will be something similar to your 3 stop recovery and denoise.*



With a single shot and a 5-stop pull, being able to get results like my 3-stop pull + denoise is HUGE. That's with a FIVE STOP PULL. I'm basically lifting detail THIRTY TWO TIMES darker than the darkest observable level before the pull. It would still have less noise, and what noise it did have is cleaner...no banding, far less color noise. Downplay it all you want...but, that's freakin awesome. I spent about 10 minutes denoising the 3-stop pull, and I lost a lot of detail. I could spend more time tweaking it...but, that's MORE TIME. I took about 20 different bracketed shots of that sunflower field. Let's say it takes 30 minutes to fix each one to the best result possible. That's TEN HOURS worth of work!!!! I don't know about others, but that's just...insane. I never spend that much time working on my wildlife and bird photos. To get the image I wanted, I did an HDR merge that still had problems with tonal gradients around the sun...I had to use brushing in ACR to clean up around the sun, and it still has some posterization. To be able to lift a single shot five stops, apply some NR, then do a little work to enhance the color in the shadows...that's a lot less work. That's what I want. I don't expect a miracle, but it would be a hell of a lot better than dicking around with HDR, taking 9-15 shots per bracket then trying to merge them without ghosting, posterization or other artifacts.

And let's say I DO need to do an HDR merge. I could take two shots two stops apart with the D800, and vastly simplify the process. I dunno. I'm tired of defending a company that is still shoving sensors that produce images that look like my 5D III samples in the shadows. That's the same freakin ISO 100 IQ we got with the 5D II years ago!! Things have changed in the market. It's possible to get radically better hardware than that now that support a vastly simpler, lighter post-processing workload. So why not?


----------



## ajperk (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



I've followed so many of these conversations on this website. People DO get it. They really do. They just aren't as concerned about it, are willing to use other techniques, don't like the lens options of other brands, or the ergonomics, or just plain like the camera they have bought and want to go take pictures, etc... Yeah, they may quibble here and there about this statement or that, this example or that, this measure or that, but everyone concedes the substance of everything you are trying to argue for here. They simply don't get as worked up over it, and don't think it will make such a big impact in there photography if they change cameras (or, may even be worried that it will negatively impact their photography for non-DR related reasons).

Personally, what I don't understand is why so many people spend so much time worrying that there might be someone else on this forum that doesn't agree completely with their gear choices or the rationale for those choices.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


> The only part I'd be concerned with is the ability of the A7r to hold a long/heavy lens on a tripod.



er... what? The tripod holds the lens, the lens holds the camera.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Aug 25, 2014)

these questions is written especially for dilbert:

1. where in the world that canon suggest users to increase 5 stops in post? only 3 stops max that i know. however, if i shot an image and increase close to 2 stops of exposure, i consider myselft as a looser in the learning game.

2. sensors see two of these images as the same exposure? assume that:
a. focus points of the two cameras were on the same brightness level, and 
b. images are seeing at sensor levels, not taken yet, and
c. excluding the use of spot meter since i do not think the photographers did in this case.

if yes, then dilbert, you need to learn more LOL.... 

note: if you think that i steal the image from 500px, take a look closely and then make a determination, do not act like your friend. honestly, i can get any images from online as long as i want, but in this case... i don't...


----------



## ishdakuteb (Aug 25, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > The only part I'd be concerned with is the ability of the A7r to hold a long/heavy lens on a tripod.
> ...



lol...


----------



## jrista (Aug 25, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> And the way you mock and sometimes knowingly obfuscate, I mean why? To what good end for anyone?



This is the thing right here. After the ZigZagZoe episode, I started seeing this fundamentally mocking behavior. Now I'm getting it in boatloads from Sporgon. THAT is what I don't get. I've bickered about technical details all the time, but I don't think I ever got to MOCKING people. I've argued from the other side of the fence before as well, I've defended the position of D800 advocates in the past on several occasions, however most of those also involved DXO, and I walked the line between defending the D800's DR advantage, and attacking DXO's bad science. 

Seeing the mockery is part of why I'm changing my stance. We all know the benefits that technology like that in Exmor can offer. And yet, when I ask...would anyone here stand up and start vocally demanding fundamentally better sensor technology from Canon in the next DSLR...I get mocked? I honestly, truly, don't understand that. DXO isn't a factor in this discussion...it's just purely about the real-world differences in editing latitude between Canon sensors and Exmor. That's all it took, to go from a guy people seemed to generally respect, to a laughing stock?  



ajperk said:


> Personally, what I don't understand is why so many people spend so much time worrying that there might be someone else on this forum that doesn't agree completely with their gear choices or the rationale for those choices.



It's not that someone else doesn't agree. It's the unmitigated mocking fanboyism that REFUSES to acknowledge an alternative stance on the subject, and not only that, is apparently more than happy to KEEP THEMSELVES STUCK in the dark ages. Despicably even, some apparently don't want technology to improve so those they consider non-photographers CAN'T CREATE BETTER PHOTOS!! I'm sorry, but that disgusts me. It's a useless reason, born purely out of egotistical selfishness.

I've spouted theory and simple math for years on these forums. In most respects, the theories were correct...but I am honestly down right surprised at how poorly the 5D III, a camera of the same generation as the D800, performs at ISO 100 in the shadows. I remember the IQ from the 5D II...it was marginally worse...but generally, the same darn thing! I expected more...and I am happy to admit *I was SORELY wrong* about the 5D III's capabilities at low ISO. It more than lives up to my expectations at high ISO, and at any ISO where shadow lifting is not necessary, it's fine. But it doesn't do what I had hoped it would do for landscapes. So I've changed my stance. I have to look at the facts and accept I was wrong about something. So I DID!

And...I get mocked for it. That is the problem, ajperk. I could care less if someone agrees with me, really. I could really care less about being mocked...I don't care. But to see a whole community of people with their heads in the sand..._and happy about it?_ So happy about it, in fact, that they will defend Canon to the last, to the end, regardless of whether that means they are stuck with increasingly inferior equipment as the years roll on? 

Well...to each is own, I guess. Me, I'm going to get vocal about Canon's crappy low ISO noise, and do everything I can to back up my claims with concrete, visual evidence...because, it's really freakin NASTY noise. STILL nasty...after all these years. And I think that needs to change (especially because Canon is still my preferred brand...I'd rather have a 5D IV with 50mp and 14 stops of DR than a D800.)


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 25, 2014)

Most of my pictures are B&B, but the attached picture demonstrates about the limit that I can go to with the 5DII in one exposure. ( Haven't got the 6D at the moment but it is better). 

This shot is into the sun about one and a half hours before sunset, so the sun is still very intense. The sun is in the frame. 
The first picture is the ooc jpeg with the exposure balanced to maximise highlights - but I'm going to lose the sun disc anyway, as I would with a D800.

The second picture is, IMO too flat, but is how people who talk of 'blocked shadows' seem to want theirs.
The third is as about the contrast I would normally go for with a little punch.
The fourth is a 200% crop of the wall in shadow.

When I can shoot straight into the sun with last generation tech I am basically quite happy, but normally I would bracket and blend like the samples you have shown. 

Despite being APS I would expect the up coming 7DII to be able to do better than this, so that is going to keep 99.9% of users happy.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 25, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Just noticed some things (this is about high ISO):
> ...



Every visual and quantitative test I can find shows that the 6D is right at two stops better than the 70D at high ISO.. Since its size accounts for 1 1/3 stops, yes, I think that it's 2/3 of a stop better per unit of area.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 25, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> whothafunk said:
> 
> 
> > i'm pretty confident the 7D successor will deliver in AF and sport department, i just really hope it will also deliver some improvements in ISO department. Digic6 should bring something to the table, hoping for 2/3 - 1 stop ISO improvement over 70D.
> ...



I think the DIGIC chips do the A to D conversion. If so, a better, lower noise conversion could help with high ISO performance.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> Well...to each is own, I guess. Me, I'm going to get vocal about Canon's crappy low ISO noise, and do everything I can to back up my claims with concrete, visual evidence...because, it's really freakin NASTY noise. STILL nasty...after all these years. And I think that needs to change (especially because Canon is still my preferred brand...I'd rather have a 5D IV with 50mp and 14 stops of DR than a D800.)



I see nothing wrong with jrista complaining about "Canon's crappy low ISO noise". It does not make him more or less of a fanboy, it just means that he isn't blind.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 25, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


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


You are correct.

A/D is done on the Digic chips and that is the reason for Canon's noise problems.

Much of the competition does the A/D on the sensor. It is better because:
On sensor A/D means no analog lines across the circuit board to pick up noise.....
On Sensor A/D can be done for an entire row or column at a time, and that means a thousand (or more) times the time to do it in, which leads to greater accuracy and less noise...


----------



## jrista (Aug 26, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Most of my pictures are B&B, but the attached picture demonstrates about the limit that I can go to with the 5DII in one exposure. ( Haven't got the 6D at the moment but it is better).
> 
> This shot is into the sun about one and a half hours before sunset, so the sun is still very intense. The sun is in the frame.
> The first picture is the ooc jpeg with the exposure balanced to maximise highlights - but I'm going to lose the sun disc anyway, as I would with a D800.
> ...



Just to point out...none of those photos are even remotely DR limited. Point your camera directly into the sun, underexpose by four to five stops (so you can recover the sun, as in the D800 samples I linked), THEN see how things perform.


----------



## NancyP (Aug 26, 2014)

So what are the engineering considerations involved in on-sensor ADC?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2014)

dilbert said:


> If you exclude the "OMG, 1080p in the 5DII" and look at the very slow evolution of Canon's DSLRs then it is pretty easy to accurately guess where Canon will go next...
> 
> i.e. not very far.



Not far? 65 cross-type AF points, covering most of the horizontal dimension of the frame, on a dedicated PDAF sensor coupled with good Servo algorithms for excellent tracking of moving subjects). That's triple the number of cross-type points of any other crop camera, and 50% more of them than the top FF bodies. 

Sad that your myopic tunnel vision leads means you can't see anything but the sensor.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2014)

NancyP said:


> So what are the engineering considerations involved in on-sensor ADC?


The big one is making the transistors small enough so that everything will fit.
The next big one is dealing with heat.... more heat gives you more noise....

Both considerations demand that Canon switches to a finer lithography..


----------



## unfocused (Aug 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Well...to each is own, I guess. Me, I'm going to get vocal about Canon's crappy low ISO noise, and do everything I can to back up my claims with concrete, visual evidence...because, it's really freakin NASTY noise. STILL nasty...after all these years. And I think that needs to change (especially because Canon is still my preferred brand...I'd rather have a 5D IV with 50mp and 14 stops of DR than a D800.)
> ...



Anyone is welcome to complain about anything they want. But...

...doing it over and over and over and over again to the same audience becomes tedious.

...attempting to "prove" your point again and again to those who happen to disagree with your opinion becomes annoying.

...insisting that you are right and then attacking anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint is obnoxious. 

...failing to recognize that what you perceive to be a major concern isn't necessarily even a minor concern of others is rude.

...hijacking every discussion to push your agenda with long diatribes that repeat the same basic points time after time is obsessive.

...demeaning others when they raise concerns about features that you don't happen to care about (as in touch screens) is narrow minded. 

...making wild claims that unless your particular obsession is addressed by a major multi-national corporation they will be ******* is delusional.

And, most important of all...thinking that these discussions on an internet forum are anything more than trivial ineffective entertainment is just silliness.


----------



## ajperk (Aug 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > And the way you mock and sometimes knowingly obfuscate, I mean why? To what good end for anyone?
> ...



I suppose we could go back and forth forever, but you seem to corroborate what I suggested: at several points in your post you essentially state that it bothers you that others don't feel the same as you do. You did elaborate as to why: e.g. you've shown time and again via examples the difference in sensor capabilities, you seem to think that their differing stance is holding back progress, and an admittedly curious theory about a desire to keep others from taking good pictures. But it still essentially seems to come down to this: you're bothered that others aren't as bothered as you are. I think you may be mistaking indifference for malice.

While the mockery is childish, I think what it comes down to is people can only figure out so many ways to say "Yep, I guess you're right about it, but it really doesn't matter that much to me Can we talk about something else?" After a while, they feel badgered (as they are often interested in topics beyond Exmor sensors and DR) and give in to impish temptations.

I'm sorry you feel stuck somewhere between Nikon's offerings and Canon's. I hope this is eventually remedied for you. In the mean time, many of the rest of us are happy, not because we are all some sect of photographic Luddites, but because we honestly have different concerns and interests when it comes to photography. And, truth be told, a few of us are pretty much happy with what we've got right now, and will see what new stuff comes out when that new stuff comes out.

Anyway, I'll let you have the last word if you'd like. You take nice pictures and I bet you'll continue to with Canon, Nikon, or whatever you choose. Happy shooting!


----------



## jrista (Aug 26, 2014)

NancyP said:


> So what are the engineering considerations involved in on-sensor ADC?



As Don stated, you need space on the sensor die. With 500nm transistors, on-die ADC will take up a lot of space. That reduces the yield from each wafer. Larger transistors, operating at a given speed, generate more heat, and heat results in increased noise from dark current. 

Moving to a smaller transistor size, such as 180nm or 90nm, means you can pack a whole lot more transistors in a lot less space. Those transistors, being smaller, require lower voltage and current, therefor they don't produce as much heat.

The actual design of the on-sensor ADC matters as well. Who knows what's best there, companies would have to research that. Sony Exmor uses a column-parallel ADC with digital CDS, and a remotely located clock. This means there is one ADC unit per pixel column, the CDS (correlated double sampling) is performed AFTER ADC, so it operates on ADU's (digital numbers, rather than analog charge). Exmor also employs per-column ADC/CDS tuning, which effectively eliminates vertical banding. The ADC units, only having to process one column of pixels each rather than dozens of columns (and potentially hundreds of thousands of pixels each) can operate at a lower frequency, so you don't pick up noise from high frequency oscillations. The high frequency clock itself, which is usually a source of noise, is also remotely located on the Exmor sensor die, so the ADC units don't pick up any issues with noise from being close to the clock itself.

There are probably other ways of minimizing noise once you have die space to put a lot more transistors on the sensor die. Canon has patents for dual-scale ADC, which switches to a slower readout rate when possible, allowing even lower frequencies to be used during readout (the lower the frequency, the lower the read noise....this technique is frequently employed in astro CCD cameras...readout rates are often extremely low, requiring as much as 10 seconds to read out a single frame.) There are other patents out there that describe a variety of means for reducing noise, reducing dark current, etc.


----------



## jrista (Aug 26, 2014)

unfocused said:


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



It's far from hijacking every discussion. I've hijacked a couple. I also know I'm not alone in my desire for more DR from a Canon camera specifically. I think there are a lot of us. I'm also sure I'm not alone in getting tired of waiting for Canon to address the issue. I also think most who want more low ISO DR have given up on Canon and just added other brands to their kit, which I'll end up doing here myself. I think that's a bummer...people should figure out a way to get Canon to listen and respond, as in every other respect they have a better system. Guess landscape photographers and others who could really use more low ISO DR really are a small niche...

On the flip side, it's just as "annoying" to have people constantly say that Canon has no issues that need to be corrected again and again, or that there is no difference at all between Canon sensors and the competition (something some people here DO seem to do every time these debates start), especially now that I've noticed the highly mocking nature it's done in. There IS a difference...whether it matters to each individual or not is one thing, but to patently deny it exists at all is another. (I used to just pop into a thread, drop a few posts about technology or some such, then leave...I usually ignored all the other discussions that went on....I'm reading more posts now, and I'm getting a whole lot of flak myself....and now I notice the underlying attitude here. If ANYTHING is annoying...it's the mocking, often childish tones that everyone here takes when anyone has anything negative to say about Canon. Canon has their issues...IMO, better to _acknowledge_ that, and see if you can do something to get them to recognize and resolve their issues if you, and any like minded individuals, can build up a strong enough voice to actually be heard. Seems clear such a voice won't be built here on CR.)


----------



## JohnUSA (Aug 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> Alright, time for some concrete evidence. Here is a 5-frame bracketed sequence I took yesterday of a sunflower field at sunset:...



Just wanted to thank jrista for taking the time to explain and demonstrate his concepts in an intelligent and gentlemanly way. I totally understand where jrista is coming from. For me it's super interesting stuff and at times I wish my 5D3 would have an extra stop or two of Dynamic Range.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 26, 2014)

unfocused said:


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


well said mr unfocused


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 26, 2014)

My original Guess for the 7D2 almost a year ago.

-24mp
-61 Point AF
-10 FPS

Rumored New Specs

-20mp
-65 Point AF
-10 FPS

Close Enough. 8) 8) 8)


----------



## jrista (Aug 26, 2014)

Alright. Since it's clear you guys are fed up with the DR stuff, I'll leave the DR stuff out of this thread for now on. Here's to hoping the 7D II actually hit's the streets with something much better than rumored. We only have a couple weeks to wait before we know for sure. I am impressed with the AF and metering system rumors, and the frame rate. Hope it lands with all of those traits being true.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2014)

NancyP said:


> So what are the engineering considerations involved in on-sensor ADC?


This is VERY! simplified, but here goes....

When you look at a 500 nanometer process and pixels that are 4000 nanometers square, your lithography is only capable of 64 (8x8) blocks to draw circuitry inside that pixel.... and don't forget that when you draw a line you need space on each side of it! If you consider that the pixel has a border, then that means that there are only 36 (6x6) blocks left... that means that you are starting your sensor design with only 36/64 or 56 percent of your surface area usable.

And this is almost certainly the reason why Canon currently has the A/D circuitry on the external DIGIC chips.... there is not room on the sensor to do anything else.....

If you improved your lithography to 125 nanometers, then your pixel is made up of 1024 blocks (32x32) and after the border, you are left with 900 (30x30) blocks left to create your pixel. This means you are now starting your pixel design with 900/1024 or 88 percent of your surface area usable and it allows you to create far more complex circuitry.

Now go to 60 nanometers, then your pixel is made up of 4096 blocks (64x64) and after the border, you are left with 3844 (62x62) blocks left to create your pixel. This means you are now starting your pixel design with 3844/4096 or 94 percent of your surface area usable and it allows you to create even more complex circuitry.

We do not yet know the technology used on the 70D, but when you consider that if the 500 nanometer process was used, each half of the pixel would be 32 (4x8) blocks and after the border 12 (2X6) blocks, or 38 percent of the surface area usable.... and you would still have to find space to put in the more advanced electronics to handle DPAF.... that it is a certainty that the 500 nanometer process is not used here....

What this tells us is that Canon is in the process of moving to finer lithography... we just don't know how far they are going to go and what will be moved over from the Digic chips and what timeframe.... but it is happening!


----------



## garyknrd (Aug 26, 2014)

I have always said if the 7D had good AF and frame rate it would be a killer combo... Since i have the Mark IV I will have to wait until the camera comes out and is rated, and compared to the Mark IV. 
Reading this thread it sounds like the sensor is going to be extremely poor compared to Sony sensors. If the 7D II sensor can match the EXCELLENT Sony 24mp crop sensor? It will be in my bag as soon as it comes out. That will be the camera I have been dreaming about for years...

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos
www.birdsthatfart.com


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 26, 2014)

Vgramatikov said:


> Hi all
> I m mainly wildlife photographer.
> www.500px.com/Vgramatikov
> 
> ...



Nice photos, and welcome to the forum. Can I ask where you shoot your nature?


----------



## Canon1 (Aug 26, 2014)

garyknrd said:


> If the 7D II sensor can match the EXCELLENT Sony 24mp crop sensor? It will be in my bag as soon as it comes out.



Totally agree...


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> Ahh. So, your happy to claim Canon cameras have the same DR as cameras with Exmor sensors,



I've said repeatedly that Exmor sensors have more. Just not 2, 3, 4, or 9,001 more stops like certain people claim. How much more depends on the cameras being compared, but with currently shipping models it's generally 1 stop or less.



> however when presented with evidence to the contrary, you switch to incredulity?...Oh, and um, one of the hallmarks of HDR images is they lack any kind of EXIF metadata when uploaded to photo sites like 500px. Any time you DO have EXIF, it pretty much guarantees that the image is a single shot.



*Nope.* ;D ;D ;D 

jrista, have you ever produced an HDR image and checked the EXIF in PS? No?

Both Photoshop CS6 and Photomatix Pro include EXIF data from one of the frames in the final merged HDR file. Lately those are the only two I've been using, but when I last tried the various demos out there I don't recall seeing even one that didn't include the EXIF from one of the frames. (I'm sure some don't. There are a lot of HDR tools out there today.)

GND filtered files will obviously have EXIF, as would just about all manual exposure blends (generally you start with one of your frames when manually blending, you don't create an entirely new canvas).

It is painfully obvious that you have no experience shooting and producing these types of photos which is why you think these are single exposures. And why you're jealous of "Exmor DR." This is what the entire Exmor debate boils down to: lack of knowledge and proper testing. (Wandering around photo sites looking at Nikon HDR landscapes is also a classic case of confirmation bias.)

Looking through your links there are two which could possibly be a single exposure pushed because of haze masking the sun. In those cases Canon would have produced very similar results. 

The rest are either HDR, manual blends, or use GND filters. Three are blatantly obvious.

http://500px.com/photo/66068697/cave-arch-by-dustin-lefevre
HDR that slaps you in the side of the head. Did you really believe this was a single frame? Really? ???

http://500px.com/photo/29165673/bright-%7C-arches-by-ali-erturk
So HDR it's not even funny.

http://500px.com/photo/79520935/sunset-in-bergen-by-attilio-ruffo
Obvious manual blend given the unevenness on the right side. (Also way over the top processing in general.)



> Another indication is a complete lack of any kind of funky layering or movement in clouds...



Manual blends and GNDs do not have this. Good HDR software will generally correct for it though if you shoot fast it's rarely an issue any way. 

Again, it is painfully obvious you have zero experience producing these kinds of shots. You don't need an Exmor sensor. You need to:

* Stop arguing in this thread
* Do a Google search.
* Read and watch some of the many excellent tutorials out there.
* Download some HDR demo software.
* Go out and photograph some HDR scenes.



> Another BIG indicator of a single shot vs. HDR is the complete lack of water motion or funky water layering when exposure time is less than 1s



Simply not an issue with manual blends and GND. HDR software generally has a much more difficult time correcting water movement, but there are tricks around it.



> Still think Canon sensors have the same kind of dynamic range as Exmor?



Hmmm...

https://flic.kr/p/d6SwfA
https://flic.kr/p/hHQU3d
https://flic.kr/p/da7Q34
https://flic.kr/p/kTpTGB
https://flic.kr/p/oE8J3q
https://flic.kr/p/nbguR8
https://flic.kr/p/cx5mQf
https://flic.kr/p/cboEHs
https://flic.kr/p/nuWLxw
https://flic.kr/p/f27f1t
https://flic.kr/p/eCdm1T
https://flic.kr/p/eZFLdr
https://flic.kr/p/eMRbhH
https://flic.kr/p/egxmh2

Remember, EXIF *proves* it's a single frame, and clouds or water absolutely confirm it! ;D

And there are even some 7D frames in that list! *I've clearly proven that even the old Canon 7D has the same dynamic range as the latest Sony Exmor!* ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 26, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > New Battery – LP-E6N
> ...



The LP-E4 and LP-E4N are nearly identical except for capacity and some safety related changes in the battery and charger. They are compatible.

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2013/lp-e4n_battery_pack.htmlp


----------



## unfocused (Aug 26, 2014)

Since there has been a raging debate over shadows, noise etc. and I am sooo tired of it, I've decided to start a new post processing thread on the issue. This is not intended to debate the relative merits of one sensor over another. We've had enough of that. In fact, I intend to ask the mods to delete anyone who tries to use it as a soapbox.

But, there are very skilled photographers on this forum who shoot at higher ISOs or with broad ranges of light and manage to produce stunning photographs – even with Canon equipment  

Sporgon, I'm thinking of you for one.

I really want to improve and learn post processing tips and techniques from others. So please, share your favorite noise reduction workflows http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22372.msg428821#msg428821 

This seems a lot more positive outlet than spending page after page and hour after hour re-posting the same talking points over and over and over again.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> * Stop arguing in this thread
> * Do a Google search.
> * Read and watch some of the many excellent tutorials out there.
> * Download some HDR demo software.
> * Go out and photograph some HDR scenes.



You might want to take a peek at the end of the "Beautiful sunsets" thread...
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8105.500


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> The definition is incomplete and inconsistent.



MIT doesn't think so.

jrista, it's obvious you've never shot a step wedge, and it's also now plainly obvious you have no experience with HDR photography (all techniques since you recognize none of them: HDR software, manual blending, and GND filters).

You need to stop arguing and start learning. I am not going to continue to debate something that I have fully defended and referenced, something which is consistent with observable evidence including evidence you yourself posted. This is becoming worse then debating a moon landing conspiracy theorist 

Shoot a step wedge and learn.



> Technically speaking, the lowest level in every sensor is black, or ZERO. By EVERY definition of dynamic range, the range from zero to any number is INFINITY.



0-16384 (14 bit ADC) is infinity? ???

Do you need an education in basic mathematics?



> So far, you, and everyone else who offers some description of "Photographic DR", has not defined how you determine the lowest level, from which you can then define a range from that to the white point.



I pointed you to a book from MIT that defines it, explains how to test it, and explains how to interpret the results. This is no longer open for debate until you actually make an effort to learn and understand.



> You can spend hours carefully reducing the noise present in a Canon image,



Hours? It takes you hours to move sliders in ACR? Or in a worst case scenario mask shadows and run a 3rd party NR plugin? Hours? ???

Enough...you are arguing just to argue. You need to actually learn about dynamic range and high dynamic range photography. That won't happen while you're being stubborn and argumentative on a forum.

Google "HDR tutorial" and learn how to achieve the shots you want.


----------



## jrista (Aug 26, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Again, it is painfully obvious you have zero experience producing these kinds of shots. You don't need an Exmor sensor. You need to:
> 
> * Stop arguing in this thread
> * Do a Google search.
> ...



Hmm...really? I guess my time out in the field...literally...yesterday, gathering bracketed shots and doing HDR processing was just all a waste then:







I'm sorry. I'll sheepishly crawl back into my hole, cry some, then make another pitiful attempt at "learning" HDR. ;P





LOL, night d.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> Fine with me, though. I'll pick up a D810 and a 14-24 at some point for my landscapes (it's really tough, buying for both terrestrial and astro photography...you really pick and choose what to buy and when...so God only knows when I'll actually buy the darn thing.)



Please. When you still don't get the shots those guys are getting, Google "HDR Tutorial"


----------



## jrista (Aug 26, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> > Technically speaking, the lowest level in every sensor is black, or ZERO. By EVERY definition of dynamic range, the range from zero to any number is INFINITY.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What happens when you divide any number by zero? What happens when you take the logarithm of zero or infinity?

Mathematical formula for DR:


```
20*log(FWC/RNrms)
```

FWC divided by noise. Hmm, let's see:


```
20*log(16384/0)
```

Dur...oops... *Infinity!*


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 26, 2014)

Diltiazem said:


> No denying that Exmor sensor will do better in this situation, but don't expect miracle from them. If you lift 5 stops of shadow you end up with plenty of noise, color aberration and loss of detail. It will be something similar to your 3 stop recovery and denoise. The other thing that happens is that shadow lifted areas will be distastefully bland with lack of contrast and muted color. So, you will need more processing (selective contrast enhancement, color boosting, color correction etc) in addition to NR in the shadow lifted areas to make it presentable.



1,000x this. You will not get the same fine detail, tonality, or color when pushing shadows hard as you will with HDR/blending/GND. ETTR is not actually about noise, but tonality. So what happens when you ETTL and push 5 stops? Blocked up, dull tonality.

Exmor certainly does not solve this. It makes life easier when you're going to push a couple stops. And it makes substandard images when someone blindly thinks they can push 5 stops all the time.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > > Technically speaking, the lowest level in every sensor is black, or ZERO. By EVERY definition of dynamic range, the range from zero to any number is INFINITY.
> ...



Introducing real math? How rude, he thought he had a zinger. But seriously, try DualISO if you haven't already.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 26, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


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



DxO puts it at 4db or 1.3 stops better than the 70D at high ISO for 8MP normalized. The sensor size difference is just that. I might be missing something. But is what I'm seeing what sounds most reasonable just kinda guestimating what would make most sense. And it puts 6D at 4.8dB better than 7D so if the 7D2 used 6D tech wouldn't make the 7D2 1/3 stop better than the 7D? (of course it is possible that it might have 1.5-2 stops better DR at very high ISOs than the 7D, which is quite a lot more, if it had 6D per area performance)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> ...I started seeing this fundamentally mocking behavior.



Yep, it's just popping up all over the place!



jrista said:


> Dur...oops... *Infinity!*





jrista said:


> WOW...  Well, clueless is as clueless does, I guess... You've definitely "clearly" proven your point...whatever your point actually is.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 26, 2014)

unfocused said:


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



and yet there were plenty of threads that were clearly titled to suggest they'd discuss sensors and DR and was the anti-DR crowd who often be the ones who jump in and start calling anyone who report some measurement names


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 26, 2014)

ajperk said:


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



Often someone says they hope it has more DR or they measure some new sensor and same darn it doesn't have better DR, man I hope they get with or something. And it might end there. They say that and then others talk about other aspects or what not (if it is a thread that was not made to be about DR)

but then you get out of the wood work "learn to expose moron!", "troll!", "the difference is barely noticeable", some posts dubious info from a site chopping out the main point of the site they were quoting from, someone makes mocking comments, "get out of the lab geek!", "take a photo for once (and half the people who say this end up having galleries of a few pics of cats in the backyard and the ones they are getting on have thousands of shots of all types)", "DxO is a 100% fraud in every way", "a real artists doesn't need more than 6 stops of DR", etc. etc. and then people try to counter that.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> You might want to take a peek at the end of the "Beautiful sunsets" thread...



I'm literally shocked. If someone else had posted that from a D800 he would have insisted it was a single frame.

So we're not actually dealing with complete ignorance about HDR, just an unshakable belief that Exmor sensors can some how do the impossible and deliver similar results from a single exposure. Interesting.

Well, let him blow $3g's on a D810 and find out.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> > 0-16384 (14 bit ADC) is infinity? ???
> >
> > Do you need an education in basic mathematics?
> 
> ...



Division has nothing to do with it. 0 is the first tonal step. 1 is the next. 2 is the...you get the point. Your formula is not a formula for photographic dynamic range.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ...I started seeing this fundamentally mocking behavior.
> ...


I wish that all parties would try to be more civil and resist the urge to sink to the bottom. This forum is what we make of it....

and some advice from mom.... "Just because Timmy is an a**hole, that doesn't give you the right to be one". Keep it clean and respectful please....


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> Hmm...really? I guess my time out in the field...literally...yesterday, gathering bracketed shots and doing HDR processing was just all a waste then:



So you can produce an HDR image, you just can't recognize when HDR was used on an image. Check.

Now try your same test with a D800. When you realize the results aren't much better then a 5D3 with NR we can be done with this nonsense.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


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



Don, when people show no respect and just shout and argue over everybody, it becomes impossibly difficult to show them any respect in return.

I'd love the most verbose people to actually take the time to photograph a step wedge, it should take about 15 seconds, and post their results. One obviously naive and inexperienced HDR image that inexplicably garners some wows does not a complete understanding of wide range processing make.

But what do I know, I only earn my living shooting wide DR images with Canon gear.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> But why fight sooooo hard to make sure Canon stays behind in this regard forever? How is that a good thing?



How many times do I have to say more DR is a good thing? How many times do I have to say that if my primary interest was landscape photography, I'd be using a D800/810? 

How is stating a series of facts, and drawing a logical conclusion from those facts, 'fighting for Canon to stay behind on low ISO DR'? 

Fact: Canon sensors have delivered less low ISO DR for >4 years. 
Fact: Canon has not lost market share over that same period. 
Conclusion: Delivering less low ISO DR has not negatively affected Canon's sales. 

I'd be perfectly happy if Canon delivers more DR. But anyone with a shred of business acumen knows R&D resources are finite and is familiar with the concept of opportunity cost – development of one technology comes at the expense on _not_ developing something else. What would you want them to not develop? Now...asking that is like asking which brand is 'best' – everyone has their own answer. Canon's job is to determine which features are most important to the majority of buyers. So far, low ISO DR doesn't seem to have made the priority cut...and Canon's sales haven't suffered for it, so it was the right decision for them (and their shareholders). 

The point is, I'm not saying Canon _shouldn't_ work to improve low ISO DR – it's not my call anyway. I'm trying to explain likely reasons why they _haven't_ made it a priority. 

You want more low ISO DR? That's fine...buy a camera with an Exmor sensor. 

You want to claim (as you just did about the hypothetical 5D4) that if Canon doesn't improve low ISO DR, their sales will suffer and/or they're '*******'? That claim is contrary to the available evidence, so quite frankly, making such a claim just makes you look silly.


----------



## jrista (Aug 26, 2014)

raptor3x said:


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



Yeah, I've thought about DualISO. I don't like the loss in resolution...and I've never been too sure about putting ML on a brand new camera.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Don, when people show no respect and just shout and argue over everybody, it becomes impossibly difficult to show them any respect in return.


It's a hard thing to do. I try to focus on the good things and ignore the bad.... after all, we all do stupid things from time to time..



privatebydesign said:


> I'd love the most verbose people to actually take the time to photograph a step wedge, it should take about 15 seconds, and post their results.


I had one back in the good old days of the B+W darkroom.... I kind of wish I had one now because this has gotten me very curious as to how my various cameras compare... I might have to order one  (any recommendations?)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought of "stops" as an analog/perception scale and that it did not necessarily match up with a digital scale... perhaps part of the confusion here is that people are talking about two different things yet using the same terminology.


----------



## jrista (Aug 26, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ...I started seeing this fundamentally mocking behavior.
> ...



Heh, touche. Although, I tried the reasonable approach first, over and over, and he's been asking for it for days. He makes it very, very hard not to sometimes.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> I've never been too sure about putting ML on a brand new camera.


+1

I intend to get a 7D2 when it comes out. I really don't care about any of the features other than the AF system as I am sure that everything will be an improvement over the 60D. The first thing I do when it arrives will be to send my 60D off to Canon for a cleaning and a new rubber grip.... The first thing I will do when it comes back is to load ML on it...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> What happens when you divide any number by zero? What happens when you take the logarithm of zero or infinity?



What happens? You evaluate the limit, per LHospital. We don't have that case here, though.



dtaylor said:


> 0-16384 (14 bit ADC) is infinity? ???



16,384 = 2^14.

The lowest value the sensor records, however, isn't 0.

It's 2^0. Were it zero, any increase would be infinite on a percentage basis.

But it isn't.

1-2-4-8-...2^bitdepth


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > 0-16384 (14 bit ADC) is infinity? ???
> ...



The range is from 0 to (2^N)-1
it is 0 to 16383


----------



## tat3406 (Aug 26, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > It does seem to happen a lot. Remember all the people poo-pooing the 6D when its specs were released? Many of those here advocated for the 5DII over the 6D, but you don't see many of those in favor of the 5DII anymore. If Canon did its homework, the 7DII should sell well.
> ...


+1
oh no, I have 70-300L, 24-70 f4 IS and 6D, so I had purchase the Canon product that no people ask Canon to do. 
I had only complain the price on Canon product, but when I check Nikon and Sony, the price seem acceptable after some rebate. I am waiting the next Canon crop body, if nothing improve in sensor, I will purchase 100D/700D/70D with very low price.


----------



## jrista (Aug 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Don, when people show no respect and just shout and argue over everybody, it becomes impossibly difficult to show them any respect in return.
> ...



Stops is just a term used to describe differences by factor of two. We could just as easily replace stops with "powers of two", if you prefer...same thing. The raw calculations result in decibels, though. If we have 60ke- signal (in volts) and 3e- read noise (again volts):


```
20*log(60,000e-/3e-) = 86dB
```

We convert to stops by dividing by 6, since voltage in a signal changes roughly by a factor of two every 6dB, and it's ultimately voltage that were measuring (since incident photons, dark current, and amplification and readout all affect the number of volts per pixel), that gives us a number that corresponds to stops of change in exposure settings (shutter and aperture...not ISO). In the case of the above, we have:


```
86/6 = 14.33 stops
```

We can corroborate this by figuring out gain for a 14-bit ADC, and running the formula for power in a signal:


```
60,000/16384 = 3.662109375e-/ADU gain
```

To get read noise in ADUs, divide the read noise by gain:


```
3/3.662109375 = 0.8192
```

Calculating dynamic range from the digital signal:


```
10*log(16384/0.8192) = 43dB
```

Converting to stops:


```
43/3 = 14.33 stops
```


----------



## RodS57 (Aug 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I've never been too sure about putting ML on a brand new camera.
> ...



ohh, a post about the7D2 

My wish list is for better AF and improved high ISO performance. Looks like the better AF is in there but that might be it. I started reading this thread hours ago (all 43 pages) but I seem to recall that GPS was in there. That would be a bonus for me as I take pictures in the middle of nowhere. I did talk to someone with a 6D and he said the inboard gps was fairly hard on battery life.

Time will tell and time is getting short.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I'd love the most verbose people to actually take the time to photograph a step wedge, it should take about 15 seconds, and post their results.
> ...



Stouffer T4110.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I had one back in the good old days of the B+W darkroom.... I kind of wish I had one now because this has gotten me very curious as to how my various cameras compare... I might have to order one  (any recommendations?)



http://www.stouffer.net/TransPage.htm - T4110.



> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought of "stops" as an analog/perception scale and that it did not necessarily match up with a digital scale... perhaps part of the confusion here is that people are talking about two different things yet using the same terminology.



Close. Stops apply in digital photography, but there's no direct translation from sensel SNR (or any of the related engineering formulas) to photographic dynamic range in stops. You have to test the system. There are multiple reasons why but...this thread is already painfully long.


----------



## RickWagoner (Aug 26, 2014)

Vgramatikov said:


> Hi all
> I m mainly wildlife photographer.
> www.500px.com/Vgramatikov
> 
> ...



How do you like the 70D with the 400 5.6, and do you miss the extra focus modes shooting birds..some say they do some say they dont care. I have played with the 500 5.6 and 7D before but never bought in, i would rather buy 70D because of the features. have rented a few 70D but never used them for distance shots.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



Not from a digital logic standpoint. Call it (2^N)-526.363 in decimal if you like, but doing math based on the digital data means you start at 1.


----------



## jrista (Aug 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



I think what 3kramd5 was getting at was that no system has zero noise. When we convert the voltage of a pixel into an ADU with the ADC, we cannot convert a fraction of an ADU. If RN is 3e- and FWC is 60ke-, then 3e- RN, although in floating point precision is 0.8192, ADUs are integer (at least, they are in todays sensors...maybe at some point we'll have cameras that can convert directly into 32-bit float RAW. ) Since ADUs are integer, you cannot convert any non-zero charge to zero...the minimum ADU is 1, or 2^0.


----------



## jrista (Aug 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Just out of curiosity, how did you determine the density of negatives? How accurate were the measurements?


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> Just out of curiosity, how did you determine the density of negatives? How accurate were the measurements?



Densitometers. Depended on the model and calibration.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I was cool (a lazy little shit) and held them up to the light and guessed! We had a densitometer but I resisted using it unless pushed to. It was primarily to gauge development times for emulsions (and subsequent paper grades for printing) and I always worked around negative density with paper grades, I horrified the purists when the variable contrast papers came out and I hogged the colour enlarger for my B&W printing. But the readings were very accurate (well consistent) and only took a few seconds to make. Saved a lot on test prints of the wrong grade paper when you did use it too.

Wow I'd forgotten all that!


----------



## pulseimages (Aug 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> Regarding the sensor...very disappointing. Sounds like a re-purposed 70D sensor with a DPAF improvement. I was REALLY, REALLY hoping Canon would really show something impressive on the sensor front with the 7D II. If the camera really does hit the streets with a 20mp sensor, I fully expect it to have the same DR limitations as all of Canon's previous sensors. Extremely disappointing. :'( Guess we'll have to wait for the 5D IV to see if Canon can actually step up their sensor IQ game or not...which is just...so far down the road...Bleh.



Same thought crossed my mind. Canon is the new definition of lazy in sensor technology.


----------



## jarrieta (Aug 26, 2014)

Stu_bert said:


> I still recall a comment made by Thom Hogan and others. If you can't take a decent shot with the current cameras available from Canon and Nikon, then it's not the camera at fault. It seems that a lot of people are expecting huge changes for a camera with a designated target market that does not require those things.



+1 on this. I've seen a lot of great photos regardless of brand. Based on what I shoot and can afford I'm happy with the 70D coming from a 550D. I shoot mostly action photos now and I think the 7D replacement will not disappoint in that regard. I think some people are quick to judge based on the rumored specs. Similar to what happened to the 6D.


----------



## ICE (Aug 26, 2014)

Canon said that this camera will be the best spec'ed camera ever.

Here's what I think. 

7D2 will have a brand new sensor. 
Probably about 24 MP and will have very high ISO handling (must last for 5 years ) 

And it will have WiFi, GPS and touch screen

And AF will be with state of the art features. 

And many of thease features will be better than 5D3 and 1DX. 
This is called progress and development. 
And will not take market from 5D3 and 1DX because soon we will see 5D4 and 1DX2 with same or better features. 

But whatever we discuss in this or other forums will not change anything. 
7D2 is alraedy in production and will not be changed. 

But the marketing guys at Canon is frilled by all your inputs. Hype ;D


Patience guys. 8)


----------



## RickWagoner (Aug 26, 2014)

canonwatch swears by the included wifi. does anyone know how correct they have been in the past.


----------



## PicaPica (Aug 26, 2014)

RickWagoner said:


> canonwatch swears by the included wifi. does anyone know how correct they have been in the past.



as correct as any other rumor site.

post enough different rumors and one will be true.

relink to that rumor after the announcement to show you were right. ;D


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 26, 2014)

jrista said:


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



Did you see my post here? The loss of resolution is really minimal. The D810 will obviously give you better results, but not hugely better.


----------



## Woody (Aug 26, 2014)

Diltiazem said:


> When i first got my D600 I was lifting shadows right, left and center (and more ). It was like an obsession. I was intentionally looking for scenes that would need shadow lifting. After some time it wasn't fun anymore. Soon though, couple of things occurred to me. a) I wasn't doing photography anymore, I wad doing experiments only. b) In my kind of photography I very rarely needed extreme shadow lifting that Canon couldn't handle. After the realization fun in photography has returned and more than 90% of the time they are done with Canon gears.
> So, I would say if someone's work involves lot's of shadow lifting and if someone is not willing to do other techniques (filter, exposure blending etc), then Exmor will do a much better job than Canon. But don't expect miracles. Better doesn't mean perfect.



100% in agreement

Also, I find that for flower photos, the best ones usually are side-lit or front lit in order to make the colors pop. Sunflowers tend to face the east, so sunrise photos make most sense. Sunset photos of sunflowers are typically dull because the colors are washed out. Unless there's some compelling background, I don't see any benefit to shoot into the sun for sunflower shots; such is the case for the posted photos.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



DSP (Digital Signal Processing) 101......

A N bit D/A converter is capable of resolving 2^N states. A 4 bit D/A can resolve 16 states, an 8 bit D/A can resolve 256 states, and a 14 bit D/A can resolve 16,384 states. I think we can all agree on this.

So with a 14 bit D/A there are 16,384 states. These states are represented as binary 00 0000 0000 0000 to 11 1111 1111 1111, or 0 to 16,383 in decimal.

The signal that we wish to measure is typically fed through an amplifier (or attenuator for large signals) so that it's maximum value will be scaled to the input range of the A/D converter. For example, lets say we have an 8 bit D/A converter that works from 0-15VDC.... if we are using it to measure a signal from 0 to 1VDC then we only get the last 4 bits of resolution toggling and we have thrown away the accuracy of the system. Scale the input signal up by 15X and now you get all bits toggling. In this system the state 0000 0000 does not represent 0 volts, it represents from 0 volts to less than 15Volts/256 (0.0586 volts). Likewise, the state 1111 1111 does not represent 15 volts, it represents from 14.9414 volts to 15 volts. Each state represents a range, not an absolute value. The state 1111 1111 is special, it also represents the overload condition where an input signal is high enough to saturate the converter.

So back to our Canon 14 bit A/D....
It's lowest possible reading is 0, it's highest possible reading is 16,383. In any circuit there is the noise floor... the lowest level of signal found in the input signal. In a well designed circuit, the resolution of the A/D converter will be less that the noise floor. What this results in is the last few bits of the A/D converter toggling almost at random. The noise comes from our amplifier, from our converter, from fluctuations in our reference voltage on the A/D converter, and from outside. When we get rid of our least significant digits that are toggling randomly, we are left with the "significant digits".

My suspicion is that Canon does not use 14 bit A/D converters, but uses 16 bit or even 20 bit A/D and throws away all but the most significant 14 bits.


----------



## axtstern (Aug 26, 2014)

Don't want to confuse you but if you are already thinking about stacking the extenders than I believe the 200mm range might be to short for you anyhow.

I walk around with the old version of the 70-200 USM IS and use the first generation 1.4 extender. Picture quality is therefore not comparable to your choice but maybe you should give the SIgma 120-300mm 2.8 some consideration. It is heavy but if you go for the model before the "art" makeover you get stabilisation, HSM and the reach of the 70-200 with the 1.4 extender without loosing a stop at a reasonable price. I use it with my old canon extender and therefore reach a bit more than 400 mm at F4 with still decent picture quality.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> snip



You of course are correct. I was fixating on the number of possible entries, not the entries themselves. This is why we don't drink and post. Carry on.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > snip
> ...



Plus, as we approach a problem/question from different backgrounds, we see things differently.... It often helps when we try to explain ourselves and show examples. Many times we are saying the same thing with different words.... A pleasant and professional discussion helps everyone out.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 26, 2014)

@Don Haines: I've always appreciated your even keel and efforts to temper threads that escalate. Thank you! Maybe everyone should have a good canoe and beautiful country to paddle through. Might do us all some good...



Some general thoughts after reading the rumored specs and subsequent posts:

Looking at the product positioning of 60D to 7D, I would expect a similar relationship between 70D and 7DX/II. Same sensor, but very different build, frame rates and AF system. If such is the case with the successor to the 7D, I'll be a little disappointed, but not surprised. It'll still be a fantastic camera and I imagine will sell brilliantly.

---

There seems to be a lot of assuming going on about what Canon does behind the scenes based on what's released to market (or rumored to be released). I agree with Neuro's point about business strategy, R&D opportunity cost and market research. Developing DPAF was NOT an evolutionary or iterative enhancement to old sensor technology. It was revolutionary. It was also chosen as the development priority at the opportunity cost of things like on-sensor ADC, et cetera. That decision was most likely driven by market research (which is just as vital to a business as technology research). It doesn't mean Canon chose to ignore dynamic range or ISO performance -- it just means that DPAF came first in the development _release _pipeline. 

From a business perspective, it seems clear that Canon does not need increased dynamic range (right now) to succeed in the market. Making the leap from that to "Canon is clueless" seems a little naive. In a still weak global economy, it makes sense for a company to remain as conservative as possible while still retaining market share and shareholder value. Companies like Sony, who appear to be boldly innovating, are compelled to do so by their market performance -- but while exciting to consumers, such a strategy is coupled with high risk. Canon does not have the market pressure (yet) to take on excess risk.

None of us actually have any clue what Canon's sensor development program is in the lab, what's coming, or the strategy for when to release it. Assumptions that Canon doesn't innovate or is ignoring dynamic range are simply that -- assumptions. Assumptions exclude Canon's market knowledge or even factors such as issues with mass production of a new technology that cause delays, et cetera.

I think the takeaway, is that it's not that Canon doesn't value dynamic range and ISO performance -- it just means Canon values AF performance _more _at this time. We might also keep in mind that the lab is busy developing _now _what will be released down the road. That could very well be groundbreaking new sensor technology that adds a couple of more stops of editing latitude. Who knows -- and that's the point. Assumptions just stir bickering...

---

I appreciate jrista's desire to see Canon employ technologies for which it already has patents. I'd welcome all the dynamic range and ISO performance I can get, though it's not critical to what I tend to shoot. That said, I tend to believe that Canon _is_ working on that -- it's just that AF performance, including DPAF, were the higher priority -- even after several years of similar sensor performance.

---

@jrista: Spending hours in post sounds downright painful. If high dynamic range landscapes were my bread and butter, but my loyalty was to Canon, I'd be frustrated, too. Perhaps a good ND grad filter might be preferable to hours of post between now and when you either pick up a D800/810 or Canon unveils a comparable alternative?

Also, on the sunflowers -- one thing I've always loved about them at sunset is how because the petals aren't opaque, they glow when back-lit. Just my taste, but I would probably leave them in shadow enough that the petals that glow have contrast to those that are in shadow. That might give more overall contrast to the scene and help it feel more realistic. Just a thought. Glad to see you're out shooting...

---

Finally, I'm looking forward to whatever gets announced next month!


----------



## NancyP (Aug 26, 2014)

For those who addressed my question on on-sensor ADC, thanks. Concerning heat dissipation, why not a Peltier unit affixed to the sensor assembly?


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 26, 2014)

NancyP said:


> For those who addressed my question on on-sensor ADC, thanks. Concerning heat dissipation, why not a Peltier unit affixed to the sensor assembly?



Sth. around 3 Amps @ 5 Volts means 15 Watts of power consumption _for the peltier element*_ + a fan to remove heat from the hot side of the peltier element.

A LP-E6 (if 1800 mAh and 7.6 Volts are correct) would run the peltier element for nearly 1 hour without the camera!

Sorry, but that is the cruel thing with physics ...

_* added later for better readability_


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 26, 2014)

NancyP said:


> Concerning heat dissipation, why not a Peltier unit affixed to the sensor assembly?



Extremely power hungry, you have to get the heat out somewhere (often a finned heat sink with a fan), very expensive.

For example:






http://www.atik-cameras.com/products/info/atik-4000


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > Concerning heat dissipation, why not a Peltier unit affixed to the sensor assembly?
> ...



A peltier device adds heat to the system. It moves heat from one location to the other, and that takes energy. In a closed system, like a sealed camera, that's bad! You will just make things hotter. In most devices that use them there is either a big heat sink on the outside of the unit, or a fan to blow air across the peltier device to get rid of the excess heat... I suppose you could use the bottom of the camera as the heat sink and then use a metal tripod to help conduct it away, but most of the time that isn't an option.... and as mentioned above, you would drain the battery very fast.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > For those who addressed my question on on-sensor ADC, thanks. Concerning heat dissipation, why not a Peltier unit affixed to the sensor assembly?
> ...



FWIW, several of my scientific cameras use Peltier cooling in sealed units. This Peltier-cooled Zeiss camera draws 5 W max (via a FireWire bus).


----------



## jrista (Aug 26, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...



Aye, peltiers do not need to draw a lot of power. Most astro CCD cameras are cooled, and they are designed to be pretty energy efficient. Most have a fan, but not all. The peltiers used in these kinds of cameras, however, are usually quite small. Heat production in a peltier grows exponentially with area. I have a bunch of 40x40mm peltiers sitting around, ranging from 65W to over 100W. These suckers draw a LOT of power, however, they are generally much too large to directly cool a sensor. When the sensor is about the size of a fingernail or smaller, you can get away with a very tiny peltier that can draw less than 10W. You can also go with a dual stage peltier cooler, which uses a very small peltier attached to the sensor assembly, and a larger one attached to that. The cooling is much greater, however the power usage is still no higher than, and can be lower than, a single large peltier.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 26, 2014)

Famateur, good balanced comments! It's easy to talk big when it's not one's own pocket book. 

Jack


----------



## NancyP (Aug 26, 2014)

Thanks, folks. I guess that one can't fool Mother Physics. Nor, in most cases, would one want to go to the bother of cooling the sensor. Deep-space astro and other low-photon-number imaging are exceptions where cooling would make sense. Amateur astrophotographers in warm climates do occasionally build Peltier-cooled camera boxes to get the camera body down to 10 degrees below ambient. I suspect that most camera boxes run off house current or marine batteries.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 26, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Famateur, good balanced comments! It's easy to talk big when it's not one's own pocket book.
> 
> Jack



Thanks, Jack. It's easy to get carried away (nearly 50 pages now! ).

One thing is for sure -- the successor to the 7D is a big deal to a lot of people, people that Canon probably knows a lot more about than I do.  I predict a hot seller...


----------



## Tugela (Aug 26, 2014)

Maybe not. I was interested in upgrading my current camera, but 4K video (or lack thereof) is a deal breaker for me. My current equipment works just fine for stills, so I don't see the need for significant upgrades there. I don't need 10 fps when I rarely take more than 3 frames at a time. 200 (or whatever) focus points? - who cares when you only use one. What will make a difference to me is having both my still and video needs in one camera, and having the flexibility offered by touch screen composition.

If the new 7D only has HD video then I will hold off on upgrading until Canon gets a clue, or make the switch to Panasonic, perhaps Sony, (who do appear to have a clue).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2014)

Tugela said:


> ...I will hold off on upgrading until Canon gets a clue, or make the switch to Panasonic, perhaps Sony, (who do appear to have a clue).



A clue about _your specific_ needs, that is. I wonder if Panasonic or Sony have a clue about how to make products that appeal to *the majority*.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 26, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...



What is the sensor size of your camera? If its sensor size is 2/3" like the AxioCam HRc than its just roughly 1/16 of the sensor area of a 35mm (FF) sensor and I think 15W for FF is consistent.

Power demand for the peltier should be proportional to the surface of the chip (which should equal to the amount waste heat produced by that sensor), if the same sensor technology is used.

Another problem is that microscopic and astronomy cameras are often operated in climatized environments - cooling down a camera chip means to work against 35 or 40 degree celsius envirenmental temperature which increases power demand exponentially.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > mb66energy said:
> ...



Yes, small sensor (2/3", IIRC - ~6 micron pixels). With translation of the sensor, it achieves 12 MP resolution – static subjects come in handy, and that trick works because there aren't microlenses.


----------



## RickWagoner (Aug 26, 2014)

Tugela said:


> Maybe not. I was interested in upgrading my current camera, but 4K video (or lack thereof) is a deal breaker for me. My current equipment works just fine for stills, so I don't see the need for significant upgrades there. I don't need 10 fps when I rarely take more than 3 frames at a time. 200 (or whatever) focus points? - who cares when you only use one. What will make a difference to me is having both my still and video needs in one camera, and having the flexibility offered by touch screen composition.
> 
> If the new 7D only has HD video then I will hold off on upgrading until Canon gets a clue, or make the switch to Panasonic, perhaps Sony, (who do appear to have a clue).




If you already have a camera for stills and need a serious performer for 4k you would be crazy not to go GH4. I used one recently and i am not a fan at all of 4thirds but the GH4 is amazing even in 1080p. Makes the 5D3 look soft every time you compare (and i hold the 5d3 and 800 in high respect for video). The still are not bad if you don't do much cropping and you have sometime to learn the tricks of using it and getting the best shots.


----------



## digigal (Aug 26, 2014)

My 7D has served me well having been to 7 Continents including 4 trips to Africa, 2 to Antarctica and 1 to Siberia. I shoot mainly wildlife and birds with only secondary landscape/travel and artsy/fartsy stuff and have generally been well served by this camera. After my last trip to Africa in May I had to send it in to Canon for focusing issues and the mirror box assembly had to be replaced but they reported 260,000 clicks on it, so I've definitely gotten my money's worth! Wish it could have lasted until the 7DMII becomes available. I'll definitely appreciate more accurate focusing but do wish for less noise at ISO 1600-2000 range. The sensor is VERY unforgiving for under exposure. It'll be interesting to pull out that old 400mm/5.6 and put a 1.4x on it and see what it can do in the field as a nice lightweight handheld lens!! I'm a still photo shooter--digital and prints up to 36"--almost never do video so it's immaterial the specs on that. I'll use my iPhone video--ha! My husband who shoots serious wildlife and video uses 7D for stills and the Canon XA 20 for his video.
digigal


----------



## Tugela (Aug 26, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > ...I will hold off on upgrading until Canon gets a clue, or make the switch to Panasonic, perhaps Sony, (who do appear to have a clue).
> ...



The popularity of a camera like the 70D (not to mention the 5D3 when ML came out) suggests that your "majority" is very likely a minority. Most buyers will be looking for integrated imaging devices, not specialized stills or video cameras. And since 4K is the future, while HD is the past, that is what is going to drive those buyers, especially when they start to buy 4K TVs and see the difference in quality. People who buy 4K TV sets (in other words, high end buyers - the same folk who buy most high end DSLRs) are not going to be interested in shooting HD afterwards, they will want 4K. So who will they turn to? Apparently that isn't going to be Canon.


----------



## DominoDude (Aug 26, 2014)

The following was Canon's own description of the target audience for the original 7D:
" WHO IS IT FOR?

Whether you’re an enthusiast looking for the most advanced digital SLR camera in the market at this level, a professional looking for the perfect back-up camera to an EOS-1 series DSLR, or even a converted videographer looking for a second camera to shoot Full HD movies with, the EOS 7D will more than meet your needs. "

I find it rather unlikely that a follow-up would target a vastly different group of users.


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 26, 2014)

RickWagoner said:


> If you already have a camera for stills and need a serious performer for 4k you would be crazy not to go GH4.


If HD is a secondary usage I'd look at the A7s as well. That one reads the full sensor and samples down - better raw data to feed to the recorder or codec. 
That's if you can accept the limited frame rate options. :-X


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2014)

Tugela said:


> Most buyers will be looking for integrated imaging devices, not specialized stills or video cameras.



Indeed. That explains why everyone has one of these:






...instead of a screwdriver, crescent wrench, wire cutters, etc. :

dSLRs outsell mirrorless by >4:1, and Canon sells far more dSLRs than Sony (and Panasonic). Maybe 'majority' means something different to you? : :


----------



## Canon1 (Aug 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dSLRs outsell mirrorless by >4:1, and Canon sells far more dSLRs than Sony (and Panasonic). Maybe 'majority' means something different to you? : :



Let the broken records keep on skipping away and we'll reach 50 pages in no time. Sorry to pick on you specifically Neuro... not intending to single you out, it's just the most recent comment.... but seriously folks, it's amazing how some of you continue to make your point over and over and over and over and over and over...

If the speed at which this thread reached 46 pages is any indication of the pent up desire for this camera it will be a typical canon "blockbuster." (Yes, canon does indeed succeed at catering to the masses.) I for one am quite interested and despite all the pages of repetitive opinions this thread has swerved off on some interesting tangents. There are some smart folks on here... I'm still dumbfounded with how an AM radio is able to work.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Most buyers will be looking for integrated imaging devices, not specialized stills or video cameras.
> ...


I cringe when I see those. It is a tool that does nothing well and usually leaves a mess behind....


----------



## NancyP (Aug 27, 2014)

But Neuro, I do have one of those multitools, a Leatherman Squirt, for camping use (gear repair potential). OK, so it has a mini-scissors, a short knife blade, a small Philips and small slot screwdriver, a needlenose pliers, a file, all for 2 oz., $30 bucks.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 27, 2014)

RickWagoner said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe not. I was interested in upgrading my current camera, but 4K video (or lack thereof) is a deal breaker for me. My current equipment works just fine for stills, so I don't see the need for significant upgrades there. I don't need 10 fps when I rarely take more than 3 frames at a time. 200 (or whatever) focus points? - who cares when you only use one. What will make a difference to me is having both my still and video needs in one camera, and having the flexibility offered by touch screen composition.
> ...



Cool. Will the GH4 take my Canon lenses and do fast phase detection auto focus while shooting video?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2014)

NancyP said:


> But Neuro, I do have one of those multitools, a Leatherman Squirt, *for camping use* (gear repair potential). OK, so it has a mini-scissors, a short knife blade, a small Philips and small slot screwdriver, a needlenose pliers, a file, all for 2 oz., $30 bucks.



Sure...but is that the only tool you have, the one you use for everything?

I have an EOS M, it's convenient and takes decent stills and video. I also have a 1D X and a good camcorder, for when it matters. The jack of all trades is expert at none.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 27, 2014)

Tugela said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



Something tells me that by the time 4K displays go mainstream, Canon will have cameras for the mainstream to go with them* -- if success in the DSLR market requires it. While those who adopt 4K TVs early might be the same slice of the market that buys high-end DSLRs, I don't think they comprise a majority of the market Canon depends on for its bread and butter. I don't have a source (so someone feel free to correct/corroborate), but I believe Rebels and 70Ds make up a far greater market for Canon than pro gear.

We have to remember that this is about _business _. A tit-for-tat strategy on feature set vs. feature set with the competition does not necessarily mean good business. Only Canon decision-makers have the inside information to support their strategy, and the proof will be in market performance and shareholder value.



*Imagine how awesome 4K with DPAF will be!


----------



## that1guyy (Aug 27, 2014)

Yeah Canon may eventually add 4k. That just shows Canon is no longer an innovator, just a follower.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 27, 2014)

that1guyy said:


> Yeah Canon may eventually add 4k. That just shows Canon is no longer an innovator, just a follower.



Errr, Canon released a 4K DSLR 2 years before anyone else. How is that considered being a follower?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2014)

that1guyy said:


> Yeah Canon may eventually add 4k. That just shows Canon is no longer an innovator, just a follower.



Yeah, maybe Canon should follow Sony's innovative lossy compression that eliminates data from RAW files, or follow Panasonic's innovative inability to make a successful dSLR and give up like they did. 'Cuz, you know, DPAF and the ability to accurately autofocus track a moving subject during video, that's certainly not innovative. :


----------



## Woody (Aug 27, 2014)

that1guyy said:


> Yeah Canon may eventually add 4k. That just shows Canon is no longer an innovator, just a follower.



Canon is not always the first to introduce new technology in cameras, e.g., video (that went to Nikon D90) or autofocus (Polaroid/Pentax/Minolta) in DSLRs. Although they are sometimes late to the game, they always succeed even if they play catch-up later. Being the technology leader is no guarantee that the company will succeed, look what's happened to Polaroid, Pentax and Minolta.

So far, it's clear that Canon does not have the latest sensor technology (goes to Sony) or fastest live-view AF (goes to Olympus/Panasonic/Sony). Now, we'll see when and if they can catch up with the competition. Dual pixel AF is promising but it's not there yet.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 27, 2014)

that1guyy said:


> Yeah Canon may eventually add 4k. That just shows Canon is no longer an innovator, just a follower.


Sometimes when you are following someone and they go off a cliff, it's a good thing that you had time to stop.....


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 27, 2014)

I believe that a lot of pros are more impressed with a camera that does the job with no surprises than the latest whiz-bang feature....

And if you look at Canon, an awful lot of new technology and features get introduced in Rebels and P/S cameras so the masses can "debug" them before it goes to pro or semi-pro level cameras.... and when they eventually make their way to the pro level cameras they are solid.


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 27, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> and when they eventually make their way to the pro level cameras they are solid.



Well, atm you need a 3rd party hack to bypass the internal processing and create video material that's at least somewhere near of what's expected for HD work, i.e. won't get you reprimanded for technical quality by content management.
Same goes for the idea that it will still take some time for 4K to take of. It takes just as much time to get a project to be shown on those screens to go through the complete production process. 

Pro level solidity sounds nice, but in the end Canon cooks just with water, as everybody else - from the POV of someone working in a heterogeneous environment, of course.


----------



## RodS57 (Aug 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Most buyers will be looking for integrated imaging devices, not specialized stills or video cameras.
> ...



I've got 6 of those! That's why I don't need an SLR that does video. :


----------



## jrista (Aug 27, 2014)

Famateur said:


> @jrista: Spending hours in post sounds downright painful. If high dynamic range landscapes were my bread and butter, but my loyalty was to Canon, I'd be frustrated, too. Perhaps a good ND grad filter might be preferable to hours of post between now and when you either pick up a D800/810 or Canon unveils a comparable alternative?
> 
> Also, on the sunflowers -- one thing I've always loved about them at sunset is how because the petals aren't opaque, they glow when back-lit. Just my taste, but I would probably leave them in shadow enough that the petals that glow have contrast to those that are in shadow. That might give more overall contrast to the scene and help it feel more realistic. Just a thought. Glad to see you're out shooting...



I actually have a full set of ND Grads and the Lee filter system. I ended up with only my soft grads the day I took the sunflower shots, and only one weak hard grad (I'm not really sure where all my hard grads are...I've been doing landscapes so seldom lately, they could be anywhere). I don't like the way soft grads darken the background part of the foreground when used with harsh brightness transitions, and the 0.3 Hard GND was simply not enough to be worth hassling with the filter system. So I went with HDR instead (which is still not perfect itself, with so much DR in a scene, and a glaringly bright sun, it's difficult not to encounter problems with posterization and improper blending.) 

The images I shared a while back were just quick and dirty preliminary edits...I've edited several more much more extensively now, and I've tweaked the contrast to do just that...allow the sunlight shining through some of the petals to show.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > @jrista: Spending hours in post sounds downright painful. If high dynamic range landscapes were my bread and butter, but my loyalty was to Canon, I'd be frustrated, too. Perhaps a good ND grad filter might be preferable to hours of post between now and when you either pick up a D800/810 or Canon unveils a comparable alternative?
> ...



Gotcha. Looking forward to the final edits. On the sunsets thread, yes?


----------



## Tugela (Aug 27, 2014)

Famateur said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Prices for 4K TV sets are already as low as $3700 CDN for 2014 models. 4K monitors can be had for about $600. High resolution tablets are here and quite common as well. So, the TV sets are about to hit mainstream very soon. I expect that will happen in 2015, when you should start to see sets in the ~$2500 range become available. So what camera manufacturers are ready for this? Certainly not Canon, and Nikon is just a joke.

4K is already here. It is not something that is happening in five years time, it is happening right now.

It is not really the point however, as 4K footage downscaled to HD is superior to native HD footage. Even if you don't have a 4K display device your stuff is still going to look better if you shoot in 4K. Plus of course you future proof your raw footage.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 27, 2014)

For me, a 7DII will offer a number of useful advantages to my existing 5DII cameras. A higher frame rate and a longer reach. I'm hoping that these will not be at the expense of the high iso ability of the 5DIII and great per pixel sharpness and clarity I see from that same camera. The 7DII is a newer generation to the 5DIII, so I think we should be seeing advances in those areas. If not....I'll pass and save for a 1DXII


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 27, 2014)

pbr9 said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > For me, a 7DII will offer a number of useful advantages to my existing 5DII cameras. A higher frame rate and a longer reach. I'm hoping that these will not be at the expense of the high iso ability of the 5DIII and great per pixel sharpness and clarity I see from that same camera. The 7DII is a newer generation to the 5DIII, so I think we should be seeing advances in those areas. If not....I'll pass and save for a 1DXII
> ...



A couple of questions come to mind; do you actually go looking for noise ? I mean getting a group like-minded friends round and having a noise hunt ? Or the one who can create the most noise gets a coconut ? 

Secondly have you used a 70D ? ( disclaimer here - I haven't but I'm hearing very good reports.......)


----------



## rajivsubs (Aug 27, 2014)

Wow, 48 pages of comments on a rumor that does not even have CR# attached...you guys have way too much time on your hands. The CR guy is laughing all the way to the bank


----------



## Woody (Aug 27, 2014)

rajivsubs said:


> The CR guy is laughing all the way to the bank



The CR forum page on my monitor does not have any advertisement. 

Otherwise, yes, 48 pages of comments for the 7D2 rumor is quite something. Is this perhaps the most discussed rumor on CR forum ever?  Shows many folks have high hopes on the new (rumored) sensor technology....


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 27, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> pbr9 said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



I'm not interested in a 70D. I had a 7D for a number of years and it was good, but noise was bad over 400 iso and I didn't care for the image quality I saw from it either.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 27, 2014)

Woody said:


> rajivsubs said:
> 
> 
> > The CR guy is laughing all the way to the bank
> ...


Definitely an indication of pent-up demand..... I wonder how many will purchase one?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Definitely an indication of pent-up demand..... I wonder how many will purchase one?



Not me, I never had any interest in the 7D after basic testing showed it was no better than my current FF cropped. There is no reason to expect the MkII to be that much better and even if it is a similarly speced FF will follow.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 27, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Definitely an indication of pent-up demand..... I wonder how many will purchase one?
> ...



If you aren't getting more real resolution with a 7D than with a Canon full-frame, then you have problems elsewhere - lenses, focus, motion blur, etc.


----------



## cnardo (Aug 27, 2014)

Absolutely, positively can’t wait for the next UPDATE to this CR thread …or better yet, getting the real scoop. Been saving gift cards/cash for 18 months now and unless this new 7D2 (or whatever it is called) in in the stratosphere, I am in for a new crop sensor camera. Currently have the 5D3, SL1 and M. looking for a wildlife/sports camera body


----------



## Canon1 (Aug 27, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Definitely an indication of pent-up demand..... I wonder how many will purchase one?



I thought the same thing, but when scrolling through all the pages, there are really only a handful of characters making the majority of all of this noise. But I do think that the existence of hundreds of 7DII posts that have popped up here over the last year might be a good indication of pent up demand.

To answer your question: I'll likely be an early adopter.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah Canon may eventually add 4k. That just shows Canon is no longer an innovator, just a follower.
> ...



Didn't you know? 

in·no·va·tion
noun \ˌi-nə-ˈvā-shən\

: being first to market with features I want.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 27, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Definitely an indication of pent-up demand..... I wonder how many will purchase one?
> ...


Same for me...
I was sorely tempted when to 70D came out... but sat on it in the hopes of an even better AF system on a successor to the 7D.... As long as they don't make it worse than the 70D (and that just isn't going to happen) I intend to get one too.... perhaps I should start up a poll


----------



## Slyham (Aug 27, 2014)

I would love one and I definitely need want to upgrade my T1i. However, it will be out of my price range. I'm crossing my fingers that some great deals come out on the 70D after the 7D II is released.


----------



## NancyP (Aug 27, 2014)

Come on, folks, we can hit 50 pages by Photokina time! Then we can start the post-announcement whining thread and aim for 60 pages on that.

Yes, there's some pent-up demand.


----------



## rajivsubs (Aug 27, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > rajivsubs said:
> ...



Of course there is pent-up demand and I probably will buy one too.....but 48 pages!! 

Agree with Canon1, it's just a handful of guys making all the noise and what's with all the canon bashing based on rumored specs which are not even CR3!!


----------



## x-vision (Aug 27, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Definitely an indication of pent-up demand..... I wonder how many will purchase one?



The 7D has had a unique value proposition of having advanced specs at an affordable price. 
And now that a refresh is coming, there's naturally a lot of interest in its successor.

The thing is, many tried the original 7D but weren't impressed by its image quality.
The hope is that the 7DII will address that. 

If the currently rumored specs are real, though, the 7DII will have the 70D sensor.
So, not much of an improvement in image quality.

Thus, the big interest in the 7DII might not translate into big sales. 

Canon supposedly knows their business.
But they will be missing a golden opportunity, IMO, if they don't put a better sensor in the 7DII.
A certain group of users are reluctant to move to FF - and yet, wold appreciate better image quality. 

As a 70D owner, I'm very interested in the 7DII. So, I'm (actively) contributing to the big interest in the 7DII.
I won't actually be buying one, though, if IQ is the same as the camera that I already have.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



If you are getting visibly more resolution from your 7D than a FF cropped then you are not using 1 series AF, 300 f2.8 IS's etc, you are also only using your crop camera on a tripod with live view MF in good light with nice contrast and at base iso at an optimal aperture. Anything less and the differences are just not there, I looked for them, hard, years ago.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 27, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > that1guyy said:
> ...



The point is irrelevant anyway as Canon beat everyone else to the 4K DSLR market by ~2 years with the 1DC.


----------



## Tugela (Aug 27, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Not to the consumer market. Sony was there first with camcorders, and Panasonic with mirrorless. Both of those companies will start doing trickle down to their lower products in 2015, while Canon have not even put their toes in the water yet.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 27, 2014)

Tugela said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > The point is irrelevant anyway as Canon beat everyone else to the 4K DSLR market by ~2 years with the 1DC.
> ...



That's fine but the original claim was that Canon wasn't being innovative any longer and was only following other company's leads. That's clearly untrue as Canon beat everyone else to market by ~2 years. Sony and Panasonic's main claim to 4K innovation is little more than a price cut, although that's not completely fair in the A7S' case due to the excellent high ISO performance.


----------



## Marauder (Aug 27, 2014)

x-vision said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Definitely an indication of pent-up demand..... I wonder how many will purchase one?
> ...



That sounds rather like the 7D was a flash in the pan, abandoned early due to poor IQ. But that hasn't been the case. It's been a strong seller for 5 long years in a very competitive market place. I enjoy my 7D. I'd like the new one to have IQ improvements of course. And even if it is a 70D IQ, based on reviews of that camera, the 7D2 will have an IQ improvement over the original 7D. Would I like it to beat the 70D in the IQ department--absolutely! A significant improvement over the 70D would be fantastic and even a slight improvement would be beneficial. However, if it only "matches" the 70D IQ, yet brings a whole host of other technical improvements to AF/burst and buffer over both the 70D and original 7D, I still think the 7D2 will be phenomenal. In the end, it will have better IQ than the 7D as it will at least match the 70D, plus it will be a fantastic performer for fast action. There is always the hope too that it will be better than the 70D's IQ, even if it uses a 20.2 MP sensor. Although it became common to say that the 7D's 18MP sensor was just repeated all the way through to the SL1, the truth is each iteration brought IQ improvements, so the 7D2 sensor may perform better, even if it shares architecture with the 70D sensor. 

In the end, even if the 7D2 doesn't offer the quantum leap in IQ we all might hope and wish for, in other areas, such as AF and speed are getting a quantum leap in ability! Canon tends to deliver well thought out and great performing cameras that just work so well as a package that supposed technical "shortcomings" just don't end up mattering as much as people thought they would. When the 5d3 came out there was much gnashing of teeth over its moderate increase in resolution-yet the reality is that it does have considerable IQ advantages to the 5D2. Moreover, it went from having a sub-par AF to one of the best in the business. And with a burst rate that makes it suitable for a variety of tasks for which the 5D2 was inadequate--such as wildlife,action and sport. In the end, the 5D3 proved its critics wrong by being one of the best general purpose cameras one could hope for. 

I think much of the criticism coming towards the 7D2 will evaporate once the camera releases. It won't be for everyone but I think it will be superb for its target audience of wildlife/action and sport shooters. Great for general purpose too, but fantastic for anyone who needs a camera that gives 1DX like speed and accuracy on a crop frame body. 8)


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > So what are the engineering considerations involved in on-sensor ADC?
> ...



or they dont' have the patents to do it legally?

you may have forgotten . but sony patented their ADC on die technology.


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



The 7DmkII is definitely a camera that I’m interested in purchasing.

My first DSLR was the Canon 350D. I’m very happy with my purchase of the 7D a short time after it was released. The 7D is, understandably, superior in every way. I enjoy a mix of photography, but mainly landscape, wildlife, macro & some ‘events’ (usually in reasonable light – eg outdoor & children camps that I am also the director of). 

The 7D’s size, features, ergonomics, IQ, responsiveness, etc – really make it a great camera. I’m assuming that the 7DmkII would be an ‘action-oriented’ APS-C with a rich good feature set. I would be very surprised if it was anything but this.

I have a range of lenses that really suit my 7D, from my awesome UWA Sigma 8-16mm to my handy all purpose Canon 15-85mm. I also own the delicious Canon 100mm macro (I love live-view for many macro shots) to the compact yet high IQ tele-zoom Canon 70-300mm L. 

How soon I might purchase a 7DmkII depends on a number of factors: 
-	If my 7D ‘kicks the bucket’ – or develops some other serious fault
-	IQ improvement over the 7D, especially at low ISO in poor light
-	AF (I have learned to get great shots by understanding the 7D’s AF ability well)
-	Screen (touch screen, sturdy swivel screen my hope)
-	Price (this is obviously relatively important, but to me I have an approximate budget of AUD$2,500 set aside)
-	Who knows, Canon might release a 7DmkIII 2 years down the track, and I might end up getting that instead! 

I don’t plan to move to FF for a number of reasons. I hope some of you will get a laugh out of this as one reason: to prove that one doesn’t need to use a FF DSLR to produce great photos!
In fact, I have many photos from an early P&S Fuji digital camera that I (and others) still consider ‘lovely photos’

So yes… I’m very much looking forward to the Photokina announcements, particularly if Canon has the 7DmkII coming out then (as far as I have read, the 7DmkII is not even a 100% certainty, though there appear to be a number of indicators that it IS coming out next month, right?) Sure multiple threads and surely 49 pages of posts in 1 thread can’t be wrong! Lol (And this is my contribution to this thread).

I might place a quick post on your other thread, Don! Cheers (again, like I have written previously – I particularly appreciate your positive and balanced input on this thread).

Have a good end to the week everyone… 1 more day and it’s the weekend here in Australia!
This weekend I turn 40…. 

Regards

Paul


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2014)

pj1974 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Canon1 said:
> ...


Happy Birthday! 
I hit 55 next weekend... I asked for a 600F4 for my birthday.... I will probably get a pair of socks


----------



## Marauder (Aug 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> pj1974 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Hopefully they are "Canon" socks!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



No? What about only every test out there?

7D has quite noticeably more reach than a 5D3 or 5D2. And I say that as someone who sold my 7D so I'm not some 7D owner making up justifications.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Happy Birthday!
> ...


With size 13 1/2 feet I am almost guaranteed "Big Whites"...


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage. Don't worry about off base iso, optimal aperture etc, just handheld with AF, because that is how most people use their cameras.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



if you are okay with a realized 8Mp pixel image from your sensor as your output (as an example), then the 7D would realize an effective FoV equivalent of around 720mm on a 300mm lens. The 1DX would have an effective FoV of around 450mm.

where you may get into problems is if your lenses can't handle the 18Mp APS-C sensor density - however if they can, especially at the center of the FF circle, than the 7D has a much higher effective FoV based upon it's pixel density - which is the equivalent of 46Mp for a full frame sensor.

even if you are not cropping the image down, the 7D will have an effective FoV of 420mm versus 300mm per pixel over the 1DX.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage. Don't worry about off base iso, optimal aperture etc, just handheld with AF, because that is how most people use their cameras.



I would never have thought to do an UNcontrolled test to validate a hypothesis.

Most everything I shoot is moving - fast. How would you suggest I shoot identical shots with two cameras of the same subject? Oh, if the subject isn't moving then the test is trivial, as shooting a stationary subject is no test for AF or handholdability.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Most everything I shoot is moving - fast. How would you suggest I shoot identical shots with two cameras of the same subject?



Auto racing, standing at a turn with cars coming toward you. 500 chances to shoot the same car going around the track...


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Most everything I shoot is moving - fast. How would you suggest I shoot identical shots with two cameras of the same subject?
> ...



Okay, add "without falling asleep" to the criteria.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Most everything I shoot is moving - fast. How would you suggest I shoot identical shots with two cameras of the same subject?
> ...


duct tape a stuffed animal to a ceiling fan?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



And you clearly have never done the comparison I just asked for. Stop talking theoretical maths, it doesn't work like that, and show me some pictures that prove what you are saying.

Take a look at these first.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22399.msg429558#msg429558

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22161.0

Then remember, my simple challenge was *"Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage."*


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage. Don't worry about off base iso, optimal aperture etc, just handheld with AF, because that is how most people use their cameras.
> ...



So you don't have one set of images or one test to point to demonstrate your opinion, despite your lofty _"No? What about only every test out there?"_

That is my point, the "tests" so many of you rest your decisions and opinions on so often are not, actually, tests that demonstrate the results you will get if you use the equipment as most of us do.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I have many, actually, it's just that they were controlled tests, rather than uncontrolled tests. You see, to science folks like myself, uncontrolled tests are useless.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


So lets see some your many _"controlled tests"_ or maybe point us to any of the _"... about only every test out there?"_ that demonstrate the the 7D resolution advantage when using cameras as most of us do most of the time, handheld with AF.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


< WARNING! SARCASM AHEAD >
I can't speak for the two of you, but I ALWAYS carry around a crop camera and a FF camera and two sets of identical lenses and take each picture with both cameras using the same settings......
< SARCASM ENDED >
Come on now.... the only way this is going to happen is if someone does a controlled test.... it does not happen under normal use...


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I know Don, I was just giving Lee Jay a hard time for his _"No? What about only every test out there?"_ comment. When the truth is none of the tests out there illustrate my point, which is sad when you consider that that is how most of us use a camera most of the time.

But leave it with me, I have some ideas and a friend with a 7D..........


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Come on now.... the only way this is going to happen is if someone does a controlled test.... it does not happen under normal use...


I'd go a step further: Why should I spend big bucks on a long lens and then use it unsupported? Getting a cheaper one and a good tripod for the difference would lead to better results.
Not that I'd want to handhold them for the amount of time normally involved with wildlife and such anyway.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Probably best if you handle it.... I'm thinking of duct taping a squirrel to a ceiling fan and borrowing a 5D2....


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

I just got a 5ft "alligator" named Mr Chompy*, I was thinking of ideas to make him move across the yard at a reasonable pace along a track. 

But maybe I could strap a couple of my chickens* to a fan, at least we'd get the feather details 

If you do tape a squirrel to your fan I'd suggest gaffer tape rather than duct tape, duct tape can really mess up the finish on the fan blades..........

*Mr Chompy is a soft toy, my chickens are real.

In all seriousness I actually did the tests a long time ago when I was interested in getting a 7D and compared it to my 1Ds MkIII (cropped) of the dog running across the yard, with 5 acres I have plenty of room to be focal length limited and the dog will chase a ball thrown to the same spot all day and night quite happily. Unfortunately I don't have the results anymore but might try again if I can borrow the 7D and temperatures drop below the 90's.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Come on now.... the only way this is going to happen is if someone does a controlled test.... it does not happen under normal use...
> ...



Well I don't know about you but the vast majority of people I see using big white lenses are using them on a monopod, which isn't a test bench tripod. Of course there are many wildlife shooters using tripods, but one of the main selling points for the MkII superteles is that they are all handholdable, indeed there is one poster here who regularly uses his 800mm handheld and several who use the 600mm handheld.

There are so many long lens shooters for whom a tripod isn't an option, most sports shooters can't use tripods, paparazzi can't, have you been on safari? No tripods, sure you can use a bean bag or a window mount etc, but they also are not test bench level support. Th list goes on and on.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



People use them all different ways. I have some tripod shots that make it crazy clear. Romy has tripod and hand-held test/bird shots that make it clear. I do have some shots of a woodpecker, I have to dig them up and put them online (although it's a little painful at the moment to think of it since the new neighbor cut the old-growth oak down that I took that set of shots on  hard to face). It was pretty clear my 7D put more detail on it even though hand-held and at least ISO1600.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



You must be using poor lenses, not have done MFA properly or slamming the shutter trigger down or not using proper shutter speeds or something.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 28, 2014)

And way back when I was shooting 20D and 50D, the 50D sure gave me more detail for soccer pics.

And I guess all the tons of wildlife guys shooting 7D cameras are all foolish and should have just used a 5D2.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

_"People use them all different ways. I have some tripod shots that make it crazy clear. Romy has tripod and hand-held test/bird shots that make it clear. I do have some shots of a woodpecker, I have to dig them up and put them online. It was pretty clear my 7D put more detail on it even though hand-held and at least ISO1600."
_


I'll believe it when I see them, no actually I won't, because when I did it there wasn't a meaningful difference so I will know you are not being fully open. Even in the absolute best set up totally artificial and remote from reality shooting test environments, in situations that maximise the differences and favour the crop camera, there is very little difference.

If you have shots that make it "crazy clear" you are not testing what I am asking.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> And way back when I was shooting 20D and 50D, the 50D sure gave me more detail for soccer pics.
> 
> And I guess all the tons of wildlife guys shooting 7D cameras are all foolish and should have just used a 5D2.



What kind of retort is that? Of course a crop camera with "more" will deliver "more". 

I have always said there are very good reasons for using a crop camera over cropping a ff one, not least is cost, ease of framing, frame rate, etc etc, but _"crazy clear"_ differences in resolution are not realistic and not achievable in even the most stringent of artificial testing scenarios.


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> If you have shots that make it "crazy clear" you are not testing what I am asking.



To get the results you want you have to approach the issue in about the most ham-fisted way possible. That's not evaluating the gear, but manhandling it - not exactly the best way to find out if one could get better results using proper, or at least reasonable, technique.

Sure, you could use a filter made from ground glass and declare that as standard to proof that a smaller pixel pitch makes no sense...but anyone interested in results will take it off and invalidate your conclusion.


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


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



;D ;D ;D
Good one.

Well, with my Australian foot size of 8.5 I will have to settle for my 70-300mm L socks (not quite a 'big white')

And thanks for the birthday wishes! I hope for several happy years of photography ahead....


----------



## sanj (Aug 28, 2014)

whothafunk said:


> whothafunk said:
> 
> 
> > *still a rumor, people. don't take it as if Canon itself listed these specs. *
> ...



ALL??


----------



## Woody (Aug 28, 2014)

whothafunk said:


> all you people see is that it supposedly has 20MP.



People are disappointed if it's the same 20 MP sensor from 70D.

If it's a 20 MP sensor based on EXMOR or better technology, I am sure you won't find so many pages of rant.


----------



## PicaPica (Aug 28, 2014)

Woody said:


> whothafunk said:
> 
> 
> > all you people see is that it supposedly has 20MP.
> ...




i just thought about it this morning.

a canon manager once said the current MP are the best alternative between resolution and overall IQ.

so if canon would improve the sensor performance significantly, wouldn´t they make the step to, lets say, 24 MP?

it´s not that much more but it makes them even with the APS-C competition from other brands.
not a bad thing on the paper and for PR reasons.


----------



## xps (Aug 28, 2014)

Woody said:


> whothafunk said:
> 
> 
> > all you people see is that it supposedly has 20MP.
> ...



Sometimes it is impossible to rise the MP count without changing the Layout of your chips. So, IMO, I could believe the rumors, that a rise in MPs to 24MP or more would afford an change in the manufacturing process - as we know from the computerindustry, where each 1-2 years an new manufacturing process needs to renew nearly the whole fabrication hardware.
The rumor was, that Canon is retaining to change their manufacturing hardware to maximise their profit.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> I have many, actually, it's just that they were controlled tests, rather than uncontrolled tests. You see, to science folks like myself, uncontrolled tests are useless.



More detail, yes. Just not as much extra detail as you'd expect from the difference in pixel density, even in controlled testing. 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22399.0


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2014)

xps said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > whothafunk said:
> ...


Actually....
To maximize their profit they would shift all FF and APS-C sensors over to the 180nM line and completely shut down the 500nM line... I suspect the 70D is already there.... I suspect 7D2 and the rest of the APC-C line to soon follow....


----------



## Marauder (Aug 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Just had my wisdom teeth out and you made me laugh. I'll get you for that.. : And LOL at "big whites" for socks.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > If you have shots that make it "crazy clear" you are not testing what I am asking.
> ...



If you believe that you can't understand what I am saying. All I am asking for is actual real world comparisons using cameras as we actually do, handheld with AF, that demonstrate a _"crazy clear"_ resolution advantage to the crop camera in focal length limited situations.

I want the best techniques possible within the limits of what we actually do, why say stupid things like use a ground glass filter, when my request is completely fair and reasonable?


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I have many, actually, it's just that they were controlled tests, rather than uncontrolled tests. You see, to science folks like myself, uncontrolled tests are useless.
> ...



Same focal length, f-stop, ISO, shutter speed, shooting position, subject, lighting, and processing.

Smaller pixels on top:






Smaller pixels on the left:


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



They are not controlled tests of the metrics I asked for, are they? I said hand held and with AF, show me some controlled tests that demonstrate a clear advantage in resolution to the 7D against a 5D MkII or MkIII cropped that used AF and was hand held.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> They are not controlled tests of the metrics I asked for, are they? I said hand held and with AF, show me some controlled tests that demonstrate a clear advantage in resolution to the 7D against a 5D MkII or MkIII cropped that used AF and was hand held.



Hand held with AF is not controlled (though, both of these were with AF). However, I could have done these handheld as I could have frozen them with flash.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > They are not controlled tests of the metrics I asked for, are they? I said hand held and with AF, show me some controlled tests that demonstrate a clear advantage in resolution to the 7D against a 5D MkII or MkIII cropped that used AF and was hand held.
> ...



PBD's point is clear... There are _theoretical/potential_ advantages, and there are _empirical/practical_ advantages. A car with a top speed of 160 mph has an advantage over a car with a top speed of 90 mph...now, demonstrate the utility of that advantage to a driver commuting to and from work in an urban setting. 

The supposed 'reach advantage' of a crop sensor applies in focal length limited situations. That generally means long lenses and (relatively) distant subjects. 'Controlled testing' with standard lenses at close distances, at base ISO, and/or with flash as the primary illumination isn't as relevant. 

In real world, practical usage most of the 'reach advantage' evaporates, and at high ISO there no advantage at all.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> In real world, practical usage most of the 'reach advantage' evaporates, and at high ISO there no advantage at all.



And that's total baloney as well.

Do you think that teleconverters are useless? Do you think a 100-400L has no "reach" advantage over a 70-200/2.8? All those keep aperture the same, and just change the effective size of the image. Longer focal lengths at the same aperture (not f-stop) and smaller pixels do exactly the same thing.

Do you see a detail difference between these two? They were shot with the same aperture diameter.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 28, 2014)

Surely up sampling to beyond 100% isn't an accurate comparison is it ? Unless you were going to enlarge the final image beyond 100%. I'd rather see the 20D reduced 37% to match. Also what happened with sharpening ? The 5D required a fair amount, more than the 20D if memory serves me, but it was a long time ago now.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Do you see a detail difference between these two? They were shot with the same aperture diameter.



What did you shoot the second image with... and what settings?


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 28, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Surely up sampling to beyond 100% isn't an accurate comparison is it ? Unless you were going to enlarge the final image beyond 100%. I'd rather see the 20D reduced 37% to match. Also what happened with sharpening ? The 5D required a fair amount, more than the 20D if memory serves me, but it was a long time ago now.



The 5D image is smaller, therefore it has fewer pixels, therefore it has less resolution. This is a fair comparison as both images were shot in raw and both images were processed using the same tools and settings and are shown at the same final size from the same area of the sensor.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Do you see a detail difference between these two? They were shot with the same aperture diameter.
> ...



18MP crop sensor versus 8.2MP crop sensor. Both were 1 stop down from wide open.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> both images were ... from the same area of the sensor.



Which is the reach-limited scenario, no?


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 28, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > both images were ... from the same area of the sensor.
> ...



Yes...and that's the scenario where smaller pixels help.

Look, given the same aperture, reducing pixel size and increasing focal length do the same thing. That's why in the astro community, people usually talk about image scale (arc seconds per pixel) rather than focal length. Want a smaller image scale? Use smaller pixels or use a Barlow (teleconverter). Same thing except the Barlow might be less than perfect optically.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I agree. 

More pixels on subject is better for detail. 

More area on subject is better for light.

More pixels on subject with more area on subject (high resolution, large format) is best. And naturally, you pay for it.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


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



Maybe they can put a red stripe around them for some "L" series comfort, or a pair that's "weather sealed" for those long canoe trips. 



* This thread is growing faster than I can keep up, so sorry to reply to something several pages ago...


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Do you see a detail difference between these two? They were shot with the same aperture diameter.
> ...



First image is with a 20D @ 280mm, f/6.3, 1/200s, ISO400
Second image is with a T2i @ 560mm, f/11, 1/20s, ISO200


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 28, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I wouldn't count on the EXIF data as the teleconverter stacks were different and only the first one reports.


----------



## Steve (Aug 28, 2014)

Weirdly, despite the overwhelming evidence of crop superiority presented in this thread, both Canon and Nikon insist on putting full frame sensors in their pro level action/sports/wildlife cameras. Hmmm.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2014)

Steve said:


> Weirdly, despite the overwhelming evidence of crop superiority presented in this thread, both Canon and Nikon insist on putting full frame sensors in their pro level action/sports/wildlife cameras. Hmmm.


One is superior under one set of conditions, the other is superior under another set of conditions, and for other conditions it is a wash.

The general rules of thumb are if you go wide, get FF.... if you go long, go APS-C, unless you are going long in poor light where the increased ISO capacity of FF cancels out the higher density sampling of APS-C... but only in the limits of what you can afford.

What you shoot with depends on what your needs are and what your budget is.

For example, if I have $2500 and want to take pictures of distant birds.... I'm going to grab a 70D and the Tamron 150-600.... If my budget is $25,000 I am going to grab a 1DX, a 600F4, and a 2X teleconverter.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> For example, if I have $2500 and want to take pictures of distant birds.... I'm going to grab a 70D and the Tamron 150-600.... If my budget is $25,000 I am going to grab a 1DX, a 600F4, and a 2X teleconverter.



^^THIS^^

The main advantage of APS-C is lower cost. (I think may have said that once or twice.)


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I don't understand what you think you are demonstrating here. Neither is with a FF camera, neither is handheld, and neither is with AF. With regards the question of comparing a crop capture to a FF one cropped whilst using AF and handholding I can't think of a more irrelevant post. Well done.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't understand what you think you are demonstrating here. Neither is with a FF camera, neither is handheld, and neither is with AF.



The 20D pixels are the same size as those in the 5DII. Both were handheld, both were with AF.


----------



## jrista (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > raptor3x said:
> ...



You are asking for a highly subjective comparison. It's impossible to get images that can be compared when doing it hand-held. I think that's purposely creating a scenario where a comparison CANNOT effectively be made. It is possible to defocus, and use AF to lock onto a subject, then trigger an exposure remotely (tethering or remote shutter release), shoot the same subject from the same location at the same distance, and get results that are eminently comparable. 

The hand-holdability requirement is a purposeful handicap here...as even if someone did gather some images using hand-held equipment, there is no logical, objective way of comparing them. It's an unnecessary requirement as long as the cameras are used identically, as long as AF is always employed before each shot, etc.

We've debated this topic over and over. You have shared your comparison of the 1Ds III and 7D a few times, and every time you do, I see a sharpness and resolution edge to the 7D that you insist doesn't exist at all. I honestly don't know why we see different things, perhaps it is a monitor quality issue, perhaps it is a vision issue, perhaps it is simply psychological. I don't know, however even your very own example data, from where I stand, demonstrates the point: The 7D has a resolution edge over sensors with larger pixels. The 70D would have an even bigger edge...it isn't nearly as soft as the 7D was, it has better IQ overall (FWC of ~26ke- vs. 20ke-, an increase of over 30%!). If the 7D II hits the streets with the 24mp sensor that uses new technology, the resolution edge will increase even more for crop cameras. Hell, there are other brands that have 24mp APS-C cameras that use Sony Exmor and Toshiba sensors, both of which produce better IQ than Canon APS-C sensors...I'd love to see a comparison between them and any Canon FF.

I agree that Lee Jay's use of two APS-C cameras is invalid in this context...the request was for a comparison of FF and APS-C cameras. I have both a 5D III and a 7D. I'll see if I can find a decent enough real-world target that has a useful amount of detail that can be compared in the way you want. I have personally never claimed that the difference between a 7D and any Canon FF was "super significant" or "clear as day"...however the difference does exist, and it's enough to be meaningful. My 7D is handicapped compared to modern APS-C parts...there have been a good number of new APS-C sensors released since the days of the 7D, which has a stronger AA filter than pretty much any modern APS-C. Further, Canon APS-C sensors have fallen behind the competition just like their FF sensors, so comparing a Nikon APS-C camera to a Canon FF camera would demonstrate an even greater resolution advantage for the smaller sensor.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand what you think you are demonstrating here. Neither is with a FF camera, neither is handheld, and neither is with AF.
> ...



So pixel size is the only factor here? Nothing to do with AA filters, age of design, etc etc etc.

If you are using fooling AF on a multi TC setup at night at a minimum of f11 then that, again, is not the test I am asking for, that is not how most people use their lenses most of the time.

If you can't come up with the specific images I asked for, even though you said you had "many" and "every test ever" demonstrated it, then there is no point in us going through this. 

The stuff you are showing is 100% irrelevant to the challenge to _"Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage."_ To do that you need a 7D/70D and a 5D MkII/5D MkIII/1Ds MkIII/1Dx/6D, and a lens. If you don't have those then you cannot do what I ask.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



The 5DII's pixels and the 20D pixels perform almost identically. And, yes, pixel size is by-far the primary driver of resolving power.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> The 20D pixels are the same size as those in the 5DII. Both were handheld, both were with AF.



So, it is your contention that the 20D sensor will give the same IQ (sharpness, noise, etc.) as an APS-C sized patch of the 5DII sensor? Things like the AA filter, CFA and microlens design, amplifier circuitry, etc., have no impact on image quality?


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The 20D pixels are the same size as those in the 5DII. Both were handheld, both were with AF.
> ...



I didn't say they have no impact, I said they are almost the same between the two cameras and that the pixel size is the primary driver (not the only factor).


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

jrista said:


> You are asking for a highly subjective comparison.......
> 
> The hand-holdability requirement is a purposeful handicap here...
> 
> We've debated this topic over and over. You have shared your comparison of the 1Ds III and 7D a few times, and every time you do, I see a sharpness and resolution edge to the 7D *that you insist doesn't exist at all*......



No, I am just asking for results from real world actual shooting, because we cannot ever achieve the results we see from test bench samples.

Again, no, the handholding is important as most people do handhold most of the time. It might be difficult, but it is very relevant.

I have never, ever said it doesn't exist, in my samples I have said it does exist in artificial test type scenarios, however in real worlkd shooting other factors like AF, handholding, non optimal iso, aperture, shutterspeed, contrast levels etc etc make a bigger difference than the small differences between test bench results.

That is considerably more nuanced than your _"you insist doesn't exist at all"_.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You are asking for a highly subjective comparison.......
> ...



Let me ask you a question.

Do you think a 500mm lens will out-resolve a 300mm lens, at the same aperture?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Even though you haven't answered mine? Sure.

There are many 300mm lenses that are more than capable of out resolving many 500mm lenses, the reverse is true too. That is where specifics of a question become important, and my question was very specific, that you either misread it or intentionally ignored it is irrelevant, despite your assertions that "every test ever" illustrates my lack of a point, you can't actually point to one that does, including your own.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> There are many 300mm lenses that are more than capable of out resolving many 500mm lenses, the reverse is true too. That is where specifics of a question become important, and my question was very specific, that you either misread it or intentionally ignored it is irrelevant, despite your assertions that "every test ever" illustrates my lack of a point, you can't actually point to one that does, including your own.



Your test isn't a test, it's a random number generator. I provided controlled tests that demonstrated the point.

Let's say the two lenses are identical in optical performance (perfect). Will a 500/6.3 out-resolve a 300/4 under your conditions?


----------



## yeahright (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


by insisting on a hand-held comparison, is your point essentially that when shooting hand-held, nobody can hold steady enough for an APS-C camera to show its resolution advantage over a FF and that therefore, the higher resolution is useless anyway in those (=most) situations?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > There are many 300mm lenses that are more than capable of out resolving many 500mm lenses, the reverse is true too. That is where specifics of a question become important, and my question was very specific, that you either misread it or intentionally ignored it is irrelevant, despite your assertions that "every test ever" illustrates my lack of a point, you can't actually point to one that does, including your own.
> ...



If they are both "perfect" they will both resolve infinitely. 

Stop trying to break down a simple system test to a series of theoretical concepts you think you can prove, system tests don't work like that and you can't supply "evidence" to support your position.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Oh, so diffraction doesn't exist where you live?

And you know darned well that I meant on the same camera.



> Stop trying to break down a simple system test to a series of theoretical concepts you think you can prove, system tests don't work like that and you can't supply "evidence" to support your position.



Yes, I did. You just didn't like it because it was shot on a tripod.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

yeahright said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



My request for a resolution comparison done as most people use theirs cameras will demonstrate that we do not, 99% of the time, realise the resolution the sensors are capable of in ideal bench test type scenarios.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Yes, I did. You just didn't like it because it was shot on a tripod.





Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand what you think you are demonstrating here. Neither is with a FF camera, neither is handheld, and neither is with AF.
> ...



Lee Jay,

This is my last comment to you unless you can actually supply the images you said you could.


You have now said the same images were shot both on a tripod, and handheld, you have no credibility.


----------



## jrista (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You are asking for a highly subjective comparison.......
> ...



I'd disagree that most people handhold in situations where you would need the added reach. In those situations, I believe most people are going to be using a tripod. I mean, that's what were talking about, here. Reach-limited situations where smaller pixels are going to show their advantage. Use of a tripod is a great normalizer...I shoot the 7D and 5D III on a tripod, with the same lens, in the same light. Usually, my entire goal is to maximize the lighting on my subject, get the right angle on my subject to minimize DR, etc. So I disagree that it's impossible to fully realize the advantage the 7D, or any other crop camera with high pixel count, has in real life.

I'd also disagree that you always have to be at a "non-optimal ISO" when using a cropped camera. I shot my 7D at ISO 400 all the time, and ISO 400 and 800 were the two optimal ISO settings for birds and wildlife. The whole notion that crepuscular hours are the only valid hours to shoot wildlife and birds in is also patently false. I have been photographing both for years now...my best photos are from the hours before sunset or after sunrise, when light is excellent, good color, and from an angle to the side of my subjects.

Your narrowing the parameters that are acceptable for this comparison as far as they can possibly be narrowed. Sure, full frame cameras have advantages. That doesn't change the fact that in common photographing situations, be it birds or wildlife during well-lit hours, sports with a well-lit field, macro with flash, whatever, "optimal" ISO settings, good shutter speeds, etc. are all viable use cases. 

Cropped sensor cameras have two advantages. First, and foremost, is cost. They tend to be FAR more cost effective...someone in here already mentioned that they are eminently more capable of buying a $2,500 crop kit than a $25,000 FF kit that would be necessary to maximize the potential of a FF camera and ensure it kicks the crap out of FF in every situation (even reach limited...and I speak from experience, I've SPENT the near $30,000 on my kit, and I really had to in order to get the kind of focal length I needed to make the 5D III really surpass the 7D for distant birds...now it does...but, ouch! That's a LOT of money!!)

The other advantage is reach. Cropped sensors, and I'd argue newer cropped sensors are MUCH better at this than the 7D is these days, given how old it is, do indeed have improved resolving power. The 70D and pretty much any Nikon APS-C released in the last couple of years will demonstrate the benefit of crop-sensor reach better than the 7D can.

In any other situation...filling the frame more in a FF than a crop, when AF system counts more (until maybe the 7D II hits...if it really has a 65pt all-cross type AF system, it might, for a while, have a better AF system...generally FF AF systems are better), when you need to use REALLY high ISO settings, etc. Full frame obviously wins. But that's not the situation were debating here. Were debating reach-limited situations, where a tripod is highly likely, and if you know what your doing, with the ability to use an optimal ISO for either camera....

We don't need to convolute this to the point of absurdity.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Stop trying to break down a simple system test to a series of theoretical concepts you think you can prove, system tests don't work like that and you can't supply "evidence" to support your position.
> ...



The tripod/handheld argument is a bit of a red herring. How good is the tripod? how well does it control vibrations? And shooting without a tripod depends a lot on the person, how stable their stance is, and are they leaning up against a tree/rock/building/??? for extra stability. I can hand-hold steadier than the typical tripod, but a good tripod is steadier than me.....

and yes, I can shoot the moon at 600mm, handheld, with nothing to lean against and still get a sharp picture...

The point is, that "handheld" is a nebulous standard that can never be defined, so therefore it can never be a controlled variable in tests...


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Fair point Don, but mine is that you can't handhold without some impact in resolution and that impact, even though it is to both systems, will make any small resolution differences even smaller.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



also a fair point.....

May I suggest that we let this discussion drop for a while and over the weekend go take some pictures of the moon and carry this on in a new thread?

I propose that those interested get their hands on a FF camera and a crop camera of approximately the same vintage.. (6D and 70D would make a good pair, 5D2 and 7D/60D would make a good pair) and go out and take some moon pictures with the same lens/ISO/aperture/shutter speed and scale them up to the same size... Get 4 pictures and post the results... FF tripod, FF handheld, crop on tripod, and crop on handheld.... and for entertainment's sake, add in any other camera you wish to try.....


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...




Great idea, though I'd suggest anything but the moon unless your main normal focal length limited subject is the moon. I was thinking soft toys or birds feathers.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I did. You just didn't like it because it was shot on a tripod.
> ...



Idiot.

The moon shots were handheld, the letters were on a tripod. Both were focused with regular AF.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I did. You just didn't like it because it was shot on a tripod.
> ...



I presume he's referencing the images from reply 765 as shot from a tripod and those from reply 769 as being handheld.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


I was thinking moon because everyone will be at the same distance and shooting the same subject with the same light levels.... the hallmark of all successful experiments is to control the variables...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2014)

jrista said:


> Were debating reach-limited situations, where a tripod is highly likely, and if you know what your doing, with the ability to use an optimal ISO for either camera....



Shooting birds/wildlife/(sports) is arguably one of the most common, if not the most common, 'reach-limited' scenario. When you were shooting birds and wildlife _before_ getting a 600/4L IS II and 5DIII, IIRC you primarily used a 7D + 100-400L. That's an eminently hand-holdable combo (I know, because it's what I used for birds/wildlife before getting a 1D X and 600 II). *What percentage of your reach limited 7D + 100-400L bird/wildlife shots were from a tripod?* (Note: if you cropped the image more than a small reframing in post, you _were_ reach limited.)

The 'optimal ISO' for any camera is _as low as possible_. *What percentage of your 7D + 100-400L bird/wildlife shots were at ISO 100?*

You seem to be suggesting that most 'reach limited' shooters are using a tripod and base ISO, and I seriously doubt that's the case. You're also implying that anyone not using a tripod and shooting at base ISO when reach limited doesn't know what they're doing, meaning you might not like the obvious implication if you can't honestly answer the above two questions as 100%.


----------



## Steve (Aug 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> What you shoot with depends on what your needs are and what your budget is.
> 
> For example, if I have $2500 and want to take pictures of distant birds.... I'm going to grab a 70D and the Tamron 150-600.... If my budget is $25,000 I am going to grab a 1DX, a 600F4, and a 2X teleconverter.



Right, yes, but the point is that FF is clearly better in many more common shooting situations than crop is, which is why the 1-series and the Dx-series are full frame. If pixel density was king for wildlife/sports, M43 would be ruling that realm but it doesn't. Its not even a consideration for anyone even somewhat serious about that kind of shooting. Pro wildlife and sports shooters overwhelmingly prefer full frame cameras and Canon and Nikon both agree that FF is the preferred size for action/sports/wildlife. There is no real _technical_ reason to prefer a crop over a full frame, all other specs being equal, and the only real life reason to go with a crop is cost. If the technical advantage really existed, pros would be putting their $12,000 600mm f/4 IS II's + 1.4x TC's on 7D's all day long and throwing their 1DX's back in the bag. They almost never do, though.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Thanks Lee Jay, I did misread your different quotes and for that I am sorry. 

Meanwhile you seem content to try to compare a crop and ff sensor without actually having a FF sensor. I'll go stand back in the corner again now.


----------



## jrista (Aug 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Were debating reach-limited situations, where a tripod is highly likely, and if you know what your doing, with the ability to use an optimal ISO for either camera....
> ...



The vast majority of my bird photos were shot from a tripod, 100-400 and 600 alike. I've hand-held both, and for BIF I hand-hold, but for the most part, my bird photography is from a tripod. I'd say the majority of my wildlife is from a tripod as well, although I hand-hold for that more often. I've cropped to as little as 10% of the frame before, however as my skill improved, crops were usually 50% or so of the frame, which is still definitely reach limited.

I also NEVER said base ISO. I don't know why I have to keep saying this, but please don't put words in my mouth. I explicitly said ISO 400 and 800, as in decent light or better, that's usually where I am (and ISO 1600)...and decent light or better is what you want!  It is only in post-sunset light that I've shot at ISO 3200 and up, however the 7D has done very well at ISO 3200 in the past...but again, from a tripod. I very rarely shoot anything at base ISO, but that isn't the point here. The point is that the primary target group for the 7D II is the same target group for the 7D...bird and wildlife shooters.

Hand-holding throws a massive amount of uncertainty into the mix. It doesn't matter if you are hand-holding a crop camera or a full frame camera...hand-holding completely removes any consistency, even for the same photographer. You could just as easily have someone with very steady hands and excellent skill with a 7D and someone with unsteady hands with a 5D III or 1D X. We want a fair comparison between the resolution of a crop camera and a full frame camera. Hand-holdability eliminates any possibility of a reasonable comparison. As Don said, this whole hand-holdability vs. tripod argument is a red herring. It UNNECESSARILY complicates things, for absolutely no gain whatsoever. 

We can compare the sensors of crop and FF cameras. We HAVE compared them, on many occasions. PBD himself has often shared his own comparison, which says the same thing as everyone elses, that crop cameras (even the 7D, with it's stronger AA filter) is still resolving more detail than a FF sensor. I disagree with the assertion that the resolution difference is completely and blatantly obvious between say the 7D and 5D III, however it is a *visible *difference. The difference between a 1D X and 7D is larger. The difference between a 5D III or 1D X and 70D is even larger. Throw in a Nikon 24mp APS-C camera, and the difference is even larger. 

This isn't rocket science, and we don't need to convolute the whole issue to favor one side of the argument or another. Smaller pixels == better. I don't think anyone would argue that the D800 has more resolution than the 5D III...the D800's pixels are 4.9µm, where as the 7D's pixels are 4.3µm, the 70D's are 4.15µm, and the D5300 has 3.9µm pixels. If no one denies that the D800 has more resolving power than a 5D III, then why are we debating whether a 7D, 70D, 7D II, D5300, or any other sensor with SMALLER pixels has more resolving power than a 5D III? :


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

jrista said:


> If no one denies that the D800 has more resolving power than a 5D III, then why are we debating whether a 7D, 70D, 7D II, D5300, or any other sensor with SMALLER pixels has more resolving power than a 5D III? :



We're not, we are asking for a demonstration of the actual achievable resolution differences when handheld and when using AF.

Why is that considered so antagonistic?


----------



## jrista (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > If no one denies that the D800 has more resolving power than a 5D III, then why are we debating whether a 7D, 70D, 7D II, D5300, or any other sensor with SMALLER pixels has more resolving power than a 5D III? :
> ...



I never said it was antagonistic...just convoluted. I also think it's a useless comparison. As I said before...hand-holdability is dependent as much on the photographer, and as much on the photographers physiological state. There are days when I can hand hold my 600mm with nearly perfect stability...and other days when I have a hard time keeping it stable (even with IS, it can be difficult to get the shot.) Your asking for a highly subjective "comparison" that demonstrates "achievable resolution differences"...but, that could go either way. It could depend on which camera is used first, when the tester's arms are strong, and which camera is used second, after they have been weakened a bit from shooting test shots with the first.

There is no objective comparison to be had there. We could all run that test, and we could all get different results. And then, we would still be having this debate, because then we wouldn't be able to agree on the outcome of the results.  Maybe if someone built an apparatus to "hand-hold" a camera for us, and perform the same kind of shake for each camera tested, then we might be able to get some useful results. Otherwise...I think what your asking for is rather pointless...I don't think there is a consistent answer.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2014)

Steve said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > What you shoot with depends on what your needs are and what your budget is.
> ...


I would go one further.... I would say that technically, FF is clearly better in MOST common situations. I doubt that there is a single person on this forum who would argue otherwise.... the only case, where in technical terms, crop beats FF is for reach limited scenarios under good lighting. 

The thing is, there is more than just the technical aspects of sensor size to consider. For the vast majority of people it comes down to what they can afford to spend. It does not matter what the technical specs of a camera are if you can not afford it.

You can't leave glass out of the equation. If I was going out to take bird pictures (tiny birds) and had to pick between a 1DX and the Tamron 150-600 or a T3i with a 600F4, I'd grab the T3i. Too many FF against crop anecdotes involve great glass on the FF and kit lenses on the crop camera.... not a fair comparison but an accurate comparison because if you have the money for a great FF camera, then you usually have L glass hanging off of it, while many with crop cameras do not.

For many people it comes down to size... a SL1 is a heck of a lot easier to carry on a hike than a 1DX, but even here it comes down to personal preference. In my opinion, for going on a week long hike, the best Canon gear you can bring is a 70D, an 17-55, and a 70-200F4. There are better cameras and better lenses.... but they weigh too much! 

Of course if I was hiking in the mountains I would quickly change my mind to a 6D with a 24-70F4 and the 70-200F4.... Your subject matter greatly influences the choice of kit too.....

In the end it comes down to what you as an individual want to do and the balance of factors that influences your decision. There is no easy answer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2014)

jrista said:


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



Sorry, I misinterpreted your use of the word 'optimal'. 

Interesting that you shot the 100-400 mostly from a tripod, except for BIF (if you don't have a gimbal head for your 600 II, get one!). I think the fraction of 100-400L shooters who shoot birds/wildlife with a tripod is very small. 

I stand by the statement that the main advantage to APS-C is lower cost. 7D + 100-400 vs. 5DIII + 600 II is an apt example. As AlanF pointed out, the 'extra reach' with smaller pixels doesn't deliver even the theoretical advantage most people seem to think it does, and the practical advantage is even less.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Interesting that you shot the 100-400 mostly from a tripod, except for BIF (if you don't have a gimbal head for your 600 II, get one!). I think the fraction of 100-400L shooters who shoot birds/wildlife with a tripod is very small.



Most of the people that I know who have gotten into shooting birds, got there through bird watching. Among serious birders, you see an awful lot of tripods holding the binoculars. It is a small step to go from binoculars on a tripod to cameras on a tripod.... so you see a lot of bird photographers (around here anyway) shooting from tripods.

As to wildlife photographers.... I haven't a clue...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting that you shot the 100-400 mostly from a tripod, except for BIF (if you don't have a gimbal head for your 600 II, get one!). I think the fraction of 100-400L shooters who shoot birds/wildlife with a tripod is very small.
> ...



Interesting. I've gone on many Audubon outings, and while there are usually a couple of tripod-mounted spitting scopes, the binoculars and 100-400's (of which there are many) are generally handheld. It's mostly those of us with 500mm and longer lenses using tripods.


----------



## jrista (Aug 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, I misinterpreted your use of the word 'optimal'.



Sorry. The 7D doesn't really gain much of an advantage at ISO settings lower than that, thanks to the read noise problem. It's still around 11 stops of DR, however the lower ISO setting hurts my shutter speed. For a Canon camera, I believe ISO 400 is at the lower end of optimal for Birds/BIF/Wildlife. You still get more light per ADU at lower ISO (for that sufficiently longer exposure...actually ZERO gain at the same exposure, plus the increased read noise), so more dynamic range (in the REAL sense of the word, not in the editing latitude sense), but the cost to shutter speed is too high. So, I consider optimal, on the 7D at least, to be ISO 400-1600 really. On the 5D III, ISO 400 through 3200, maybe even a little higher, could be considered optimal, IMO.



neuroanatomist said:


> Interesting that you shot the 100-400 mostly from a tripod, except for BIF (if you don't have a gimbal head for your 600 II, get one!). I think the fraction of 100-400L shooters who shoot birds/wildlife with a tripod is very small.



I have the Jobu Pro 2 gimbal. I've never had any luck using it for BIF, though. I've tried on many occasions, however I have to stoop to use it for BIF, as the tripod only goes so high...and that just makes it a worse experience. The camera quick releases well enough, though, so pulling the lens off the tripod for BIF is quick, then I have a full six degrees of freedom and the ability to stand upright. 

That said...I am selling the 100-400, and the 600 is a bit much for hand-held BIF. It's longer and heavier, and sometimes, especially when birds are flying towards me, too narrow an FOV to have much luck. I haven't had many BIF shots that I care much for in the last year, and I don't try all that often anymore. I am hoping once I get the 300/2.8 II that things on the BIF front will change considerably. I think 300/2.8 and 420/4 will be pretty optimal for hand-held BIF.



neuroanatomist said:


> I stand by the statement that the main advantage to APS-C is lower cost. 7D + 100-400 vs. 5DIII + 600 II is an apt example. As AlanF pointed out, the 'extra reach' with smaller pixels doesn't deliver even the theoretical advantae most people seem to think it does, and the practical advantage is even less.



Oh, I don't disagree. The main advantage of APS-C is indeed the lower cost. I just think it's a bit much to claim there is no advantage in terms of resolving power. I don't think one single person here would think they could legitimately claim that the D800 does not have a resolution advantage over the 5D III...and yet the D800 has LARGER pixels than the 7D, 70D, pretty much every Canon crop camera released in the past several years. The 7D is the example I think we've seen most used here over the years, including PBD's own 1Ds III/7D comparison done years ago (which, IMO, still shows a visible resolution advantage to the 7D, despite it's shortcomings and stronger AA filter.) 

I strongly believe that if someone had the ability to compare a D5300 and a 1D X and/or 5D III in a reach-limited situation, the D5300 would do extremely well, showing a greater advantage in resolving power than any Canon crop camera. If Canon releases a 7D II with a 24mp sensor, I believe that same advantage will come to Canon crop cameras. 

I also don't believe there is a difference between a cropped sensor and a full frame sensor (or, for that matter, an MFD sensor) if they all have the same pixel size...in a reach-limited situation, they are all going to resolve the subject the same. I don't think anyone would deny that either...and yet...were debating whether cropped cameras with smaller pixels have a real-world resolution advantage over full-frame cameras. It's kind of inane...


----------



## RodS57 (Aug 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > If no one denies that the D800 has more resolving power than a 5D III, then why are we debating whether a 7D, 70D, 7D II, D5300, or any other sensor with SMALLER pixels has more resolving power than a 5D III? :
> ...



Over 90% of my shots are handheld. I am not steady like Don. Some days I have trouble drinking soup with a spoon.

I understand what you are asking for but I can't afford either the 5D3 or a big white.

If someone wishes to donate same I can spend the next couple of years running tests ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Aug 29, 2014)

I know you guys here are photographers but remember that, on the other side of the universe, there's a huge group of people using Canon DSLRs as video cameras. It's quite a substantial market (bigger than you think) and I hope Canon addresses our needs too. 

I, as a video professional, don't care that much about the high frame rate, or better AF system, or anything photography-related as I find that the current performance of photographic cameras like the 7D is way more than enough for practically any need. The raw photographs produced by all Canon cameras right now (down to the rebels) are absolutely stunning, with tons of detail, dynamic range, clean high ISOs, and beautiful 14 bit colour. And the conpetetion is not very far ahead in terms of IQ. 

Where we have a problem is the video quality really. It's been 5 years into the DSLR video revolution and Canon still has not improved the image quality in any way. The video resolution in 1080p is less than 720p, with tons of aliasing and moire due to the poor downsampling through line-skipping. The images are crushed by a very poor H.264 algorithm and colour is saved into very thin 8 bit 4:2:0 containers, this produces heavy banding and noise that looks atrocious conpared the uncompressed photographs. 

I have absolutely no problem with the sensor in the 70D, or the current 7D for that matter, because I know from the photographs that these sensor are of extremely high quality. What I have a problem with is how that image produced from that sensor is being downscaled and stored into a video file. This is where Canon needs to improve IMO and this is what I am waiting for in the next Canon cameras.

The competetion is getting fierce, Nikon D3300/5200/5300/D7100s are producing extremely detailed video with no aliasing or moire, and have low-light performance comparable to Canon's 5D mk III. Sony A7s, A6000 and A5100 are also doing the same. Panasonic is taking it even further and producing 4K images that can then be downscaled to stunningly clear 1080p video. These 600$-2000$ cameras are producing video quality closer to the Canon C100/300 than it is to the Canon DSLRs. 

While the C line cameras are producing stunning image quality, it's simply a different market and that high image quality needs to trickle down to the lower-end DSLRs in order to stay competitive with this incredibly fierce market. And by the way you can't be afraid of cannablizing the C line, technology is moving very fast and you'll have to keep up, for example Sony's 600$ A6000 is producing a better image than Sony's professional 5000$ FS100. You will have to do it too, otherwise it will be a huge loss. Also remember that the C line cameras are professional camcorders that have many advantages other than image quality over a DSLR, they have proper audio (XLR inputs, proper monitoring, meters), built-in ND filters, EVF and articualting screen, waveform monitor, focus peaking and zebras, proper HDSDI output, Timecode, genlock, proper video-camera form factor, proper 50mbps 4:2:2 codec, and many many other factors that will always make them appealing to the professional videographer, so there're no reason to cripple the lower-end DSLRs for video.


I've been a Canon DSLR video shooter for 5 years, and am invested heavily in the Canon system, yet Canon still has not provided me an upgrade path in quality for less than the 6000$ C100, while the other companies are providing that for their customers for much less. 

This situation needs to change as soon as possible with the 7D successor otherwise Canon will be losing a huge share of the market (video shooters) shifting to Panasonic, Sony, and Nikon. 

I want a Canon DSLR (hopefully the next 7D) with an image closer to the C100/C300, i.e,

-1080p resolution 
-No aliasing or moire
-Low light performance similar to the competetion


----------



## vscd (Aug 29, 2014)

To the Dynamic Range hunters just a small hint... the advantage of Nikon is only on the lower ISOs. If you need high ISO for sportsphotography or birds, the Canon is equal around ISO 800 with even better results on the higher ones. 







Most people forget this, blame Canon but shoot with ISO1600 on a wedding.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> We're not, we are asking for a demonstration of the actual achievable resolution differences when handheld and when using AF.



As JR said, there's so many variables it can become entirely subjective.
FWIW, I've had handheld AF shots from my 800e with 70-200mm f/4 VR at 200mm that are as crisp at 15th second (yes, low light) as I was getting my my 5d2 and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS 2 in bright sunlight (likely 1/400s @ f8)
Used with good glass and technique, even handheld, the ability to get very high resolution images from the d800 series is not all that difficult. The 810's mirror action is even smoother, which should help a bit more.

So JR, if you buy or borrow that d800, don't be drinkin' too much coffee when you're test-shooting hand held lenses.


----------



## candyman (Aug 29, 2014)

vscd said:


> To the Dynamic Range hunters just a small hint... the advantage of Nikon is only on the lower ISOs. If you need high ISO for sportsphotography or birds, the Canon is equal around ISO 800 with even better results on the higher ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people forget this, blame Canon but shoot with ISO1600 on a wedding.




Interesting. But a 6D for sports and BIF photography is really challenging.
A comparison with the 5D MKII or 1DX would be more logical....would it not?


----------



## alistairm1 (Aug 29, 2014)

I couldn't really care less about video, unless in the implementation they compromise the still image quality.
As mentioned above Canon have a very good offering for video producers.
I wonder if there are as many people on the video forum whinging because the C100 doesn't produce still images on a par with a 1DX?


----------



## vscd (Aug 29, 2014)

> Interesting. But a 6D for sports and BIF photography is really challenging.
> A comparison with the 5D MKII or 1DX would be more logical....would it not?



I just wanted to use the newest fullframe-sensors in the comparision, you can use DXOMark with own choices:


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2014)

Aglet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > We're not, we are asking for a demonstration of the actual achievable resolution differences when handheld and when using AF.
> ...



Having seen your work, I doubt it.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



no really dont beat about the bush tell us what you really think ...


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Likewise.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



I might not be very PC, or win any awards for diplomacy or subtlety, but I do like to make my comments as unambiguous as possible. ;D


----------



## Aglet (Aug 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I'l show you mine..

www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22441.0

now show me yours. 
BTW, the image linked above was at 1/6s, not 1/15. It'd print comfortably up to 48" high before I'd consider tweaking pixels. Oh, and there was a slight shadow lift too, as the foreground was too dark for my liking and I wanted a more gradual gradient.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 30, 2014)

Aglet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



So you are asserting that you get "crisper" shots from the D800 at 3200iso, and 1/6 second @ f4.5 handheld than you did from the Canon at 200iso, and 1/400 second @ f8 (sunny 16 exposure for "bright sunlight") with the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII? Or just over EV1 with no contrast compared to EV12 with great contrast.

That makes no sense.

Also, if you are happy to print at 153dpi I understand why we have these differences of opinion.

You can search my attachments history for some of mine if you are interested.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 30, 2014)

> So you are asserting that you get "crisper" shots from the D800 at 3200iso, and 1/6 second @ f4.5 handheld than you did from the Canon at 200iso, and 1/400 second @ f8 (sunny 16 exposure for "bright sunlight") with the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII? Or just over EV1 with no contrast compared to EV12 with great contrast.



nope, that's not what I said



> That makes no sense.



that's cuz it's not what I said. You're trying to pull my statement into la-la-land to make it look absurd.

I just happened to supply a 1 stop slower shutter example at 3200iso as it's still sharp enough to print large and look good even if standing closer than "normal viewing distance" for that size print.
At base to 400 or 800 iso, and as slow as 1/15s with my 70-200 @ 200mm, I can still get very crisp images. So I'm not up to listening to anybody's nonsense that Nikon lenses can't supply enough sharpness to be used by a 36MP sensor or that there's so much vibration without using a tripod and MLU that you can't still obtain a crisp shot.




> Also, if you are happy to print at 153dpi I understand why we have these differences of opinion.



what's wrong with 150 PPI (not dpi) for a 48" print?
how close do you expect to be viewing it from?
HAHA! or are you not a pixel-peeper until it's on paper? 




> You can search my attachments history for some of mine if you are interested.



done, jeez, I wish I'd have started from the recent end!
Aweful lot of educational (kudos t' you for that) and documentary stuff to wade thru before finding some of your T-S shots this month. Competent enough images, but subjectively, for me, they just don't tickle my art bone.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 30, 2014)

I've been following this debate on the FF cropped vs extra 'reach' of the denser pixel'd APS, and couldn't quite believe that the APS wouldn't be better, so I shot two quick hand held shots with AF out of the window on a 5DII and a 1100D, so after cropping it is about 8mp from the FF and 12 from the crop. Downsampled the crop to the same size and here are the results at 100%

I'm quite surprised. Going to do it again with a better lens to see if this can bring out the benefit of those extra pixels.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 30, 2014)

I have to say that this has really surprised me. Here's another example this time using a much better lens at optimal aperture, hand held. I have to own up and say I cheated because I ended up using live view to focus as I couldn't belief the results. 5DII cropped to APS so about 8.5 mp and a 12 mp 1100D. Just for fun I removed the data to see who can tell which is the crop camera. It should be obvious.

I'm now going to go and read up on the appropriate thread to try and understand what's going on.......


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 30, 2014)

Interpolate the small one up, not the big one down. Reducing the big one costs you the resolution advantage it has.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Interpolate the small one up, not the big one down. Reducing the big one costs you the resolution advantage it has.



But with more original pixels on target I would expect the higher res one to be better defined even when reduced. I'll try up sampling the lower res one, but still not go further than 100% enlargement as this seems to inevitably disadvantage the lower one to me.


----------



## crashpc (Aug 30, 2014)

I highly doubt your test as it is still not very clear to me what did you do, and why we see about 1170px wide images. You wrote something about 8,5Mpx  So please explain your acting in a way so we understand what all have you done to these images. Also your situation with 1100D and 5DII is not general situation. While new 1200D has over 80% of 5D IIIs resolution, 1100D has only 60% of resolution compared to 5D II. I expect it to be not so close even when I can imagine why would someone sacrifice this difference for good 5D III...


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Interpolate the small one up, not the big one down. Reducing the big one costs you the resolution advantage it has.



As I said I don't really see this as an accurate comparison unless you are going to enlarge beyond 100%, but anyway I up sampled the lower px file in photoshop, and here is the result, shown at a 50% crop.

Down sampling from a higher resolution - more pixels on target - should give more definition just as 10 mp sRAW in the 5DII results in more definition than the 5D 12.7 mp RAW. 

I agree that a 12 mp 1100D is not an 18 mp 7D, but even so I would have expected to see _some_ difference.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 30, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Interpolate the small one up, not the big one down. Reducing the big one costs you the resolution advantage it has.
> ...



You aren't. You're keeping all the smaller pixels instead of removing them. The larger pixels have to be enlarged because they don't have all the smaller pixels.



> but anyway I up sampled the lower px file in photoshop, and here is the result, shown at a 50% crop.


Where you have now eliminated half the resolution, so there should be essentially no difference.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> OK, well here is 100%. The fact is there is just no difference.



Your methodology is horribly flawed. You need to test using the real world techniques that anyone who cares about image quality understands and uses for all of their shooting. 

[list type=decimal]
[*]Put the camera* on a massive tripod. 
[*]Weigh the tripod down with a load of bricks or cement. 
[*]Manually focus with 10x live view. 
[*]Engage mirror lockup. 
[*]Shoot 8-10 shots of the same scene so you can pick the sharpest. 
[/list]
* Camera must be a D810 for _best_ results.

Follow those steps, and the differences will be obvious. 

</sarcasm>


----------



## vscd (Aug 30, 2014)

I don't understand what the pictures should show... most camerasensors have lenses attached that aren't able to resolve at least 16MP. Look at DXO and compare which lense gives the full resolution on a APS-C or FF-Cam. Mostly only a *few* L-primes can even cover 18MP on a Canon 7D. 

APS-C Cams need better lenses if you have the same amount of pixels on a FF and on an APS-C sensor.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > OK, well here is 100%. The fact is there is just no difference.
> ...



I got one right, so 20%. Is that a 'U' - unclassified ;D

The centre taken from 85/1.8 @ f4 , hand held but at 1/1250 so I'm guessing pretty high res - according to DxO. 

The thing is I expected to see _some_ extra res from the extra pixels on target, particularly because when moving from an 8 mp APS camera to 12 mp APS I'm pretty certain I could see the difference.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 30, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> OK, well here is 100%. The fact is there is just no difference.



Sporgon, I'm a little confused by what you are trying to show here. If you are saying that you can crop a full frame sensor image to the same effective focal length of an uncropped APS-C camera and not lose any significant detail, I don't think most people disagree with that.

When you have to do extensive cropping, sooner or later, the full frame image taken from the same spot with a sensor of equal megapixels is going to deteriorate, simply because the final image has less resolution. 

I think this is the point of contention. 

Yeah, sure if you don't have to crop severely, the "reach" advantage of a crop sensor may not be significant. But, if you must do some significant cropping of the image, the greater pixel density of the APS-C sensor will hold up longer. 

Your experiment is a little unfair, because you are using a 12 mp APS-C sensor. A more fair comparison would be to take a 70 D and a 6 D, which are fairly close in the number of megapixels. Shoot the same scene with both from the same spot. Crop the 6D image to match the framing of the 70 D and then keep cropping away until one image deteriorates to the point where it becomes unusable. 

Logic would suggest that the 6D image will fall apart sooner, because you are starting with less resolution. But, it would be interesting to see if that is really the case. 

Of course, it if turns out the the fall apart equally, despite the difference in resolution, then all those people clamoring for a high-resolution Canon full frame camera would have to rethink their demands.

Frankly, I'm okay with either result. I would just suggest a more fair comparison.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 30, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > OK, well here is 100%. The fact is there is just no difference.
> ...



I am one of those people who thought " I want a little more reach - I'll use my (daughter's) APS camera. As you can see there is no difference in this scenario, even when (unfairly) I up sampled the 8.5 mp of the 5D. 

What puzzles me is that I could see the difference between an 8 mp camera and a 12 mp of the same format. 

I'll borrow a 7D off a pal and see what happens with 18 mp.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 30, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> I am one of those people who thought " I want a little more reach - I'll use my (daughter's) APS camera. As you can see there is no difference in this scenario, even when (unfairly) I up sampled the 8.5 mp of the 5D.
> 
> What puzzles me is that I could see the difference between an 8 mp camera and a 12 mp of the same format.
> 
> I'll borrow a 7D off a pal and see what happens with 18 mp.



I admire your patience and willingness to experiment. As you can tell, I tend to believe there is a difference, but only in cases of extreme cropping, when you reach the point where there simply aren't enough pixels to get a sharp image. 

That's one reason why, now that I own a 5DIII, I'm still interested in a 7DII but don't feel the urgency I once did. I see it being useful for bird and wildlife photography, when I simply can't get close enough with existing lenses and need to crop significantly. 

But, as I don't have the time to do as much of that type of photography as I would like, I'm inclined to wait until the reviews are in and the price settles down before considering it.


----------



## plam_1980 (Sep 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > bseitz234 said:
> ...



To add about 500nm vs 14 nm, I have read elsewhere (an article on Intel processors), that anything beyond 65nm is extremely difficult to produce and the yield is about 70% (which means 30% scrap in production, which in turn means very costly production, imagine if Canon had to scrap 30% of their sensors). The main obstacles are due to van der Waals forces - the force necessary to break the particle is larger than the force to clean it from a contamination for example (i.e. it is easier to break it than to clean it) and also the lytography is made with ultra-violet light and not with normal light, because the wave-length of the white light is comparable with the geometry of the particle at 14nm. The conclusion was that the efforts and costs to go down from 150nm to 90nm to 65nm to 25nm etc. is not a linear but geometrical progression and only 2-3 companies in the world can produce technology at 14nm. For example Intel is the only producer of processors at 14nm, their competitors are far behind.


----------



## jrista (Sep 2, 2014)

plam_1980 said:


> To add about 500nm vs 14 nm, I have read elsewhere (an article on Intel processors), that anything beyond 65nm is extremely difficult to produce and the yield is about 70% (which means 30% scrap in production, which in turn means very costly production, imagine if Canon had to scrap 30% of their sensors). The main obstacles are due to van der Waals forces - the force necessary to break the particle is larger than the force to clean it from a contamination for example (i.e. it is easier to break it than to clean it) and also the lytography is made with ultra-violet light and not with normal light, because the wave-length of the white light is comparable with the geometry of the particle at 14nm. The conclusion was that the efforts and costs to go down from 150nm to 90nm to 65nm to 25nm etc. is not a linear but geometrical progression and only 2-3 companies in the world can produce technology at 14nm. For example Intel is the only producer of processors at 14nm, their competitors are far behind.



I totally agree that the costs of doing photolithography at EUV or smaller wavelengths (or sub-wavelengths, as I believe is pretty much the case these days) does get considerably more expensive. 

I don't think that 14nm transistors bring any value for sensors either. Even for the really tiny sensors with 1.1 micron pixels, I don't think that 14nm transistors bring any real value. Since all the logic is on the opposite side of the photodiodes...there is still enough space. For larger sensors, FSI or BSI, I don't think ultra tiny transistors are necessary. They are required for CPUs and GPUs and other logic circuits because of the need to pack ever more transistors, memory cells, and wiring into smaller and smaller spaces.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 3, 2014)

racebit said:


> CR still not clarified what electronic MF means, is it manual focus or micro focus adjustment?



I can clarify...

It refers to manual focus. People would love an automated AFMA like FoCal provides, IIRC Canon had a patent of that sort, but who knows if it'll ever see the light of day given that Canon sort of recommends against doing AFMA in their manual, possibly becuase of the implication that it corrects a 'problem'. 

In this case, "Lens Electronic MF" is merely a setting that allows you to enable or disable the electronic manual focus of lenses which utilize electronic MF (aka focus-by-wire) – the 85L I and II, some of the old non-IS supertele lenses, a couple of others with USM, and I suppose the new STM lenses as well. I'm not even sure why CR Guy called it out with a bullet point. It's a 'feature' that both the 5DIII and 1D X have, as well.


----------



## Gantz (Sep 4, 2014)

Beside all the Tech talk you people seem to love so much.
When was the last time a Canon camera impressed you?

The 1DX for me. 

Nikon and Sony, with all their faults, have released cameras that impressed me one way or the other. 

You can laught at Nikon for the DF. 
But at least this Company is taking risks.

They may make mistakes sure, but i would rather see Canon risk something and make mistakes than their boring and unimaginative updates.

Now sure some smartypants here will ask why i don´t switch.
The usual dopey response to critizism here. :

Two reasons:

1) i still have hope for Canon to be innovativ again.

2) i am not a Pro but i have too much Canon gear. I can´t afford to sell it all.


----------



## Old Sarge (Sep 4, 2014)

Gantz said:


> Nikon and Sony, with all their faults, have released cameras that impressed me one way or the other.
> 
> You can laugh at Nikon for the DF.
> But at least this Company is taking risks.


I didn't laugh at the DF. It reminded me of my youth, much of it spent working in a camera store. Too bad it wasn't a better camera. If canon did something retro like that I might be tempted to buy it. Last night my wife was watching a Hallmark movie and I swear that camera appeared in one scene.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2014)

Gantz said:


> Nikon and Sony, with all their faults, have released cameras that impressed me one way or the other.



Yes, but they didn't impress you enough to entice you to actually but them. 




Gantz said:


> You can laught at Nikon for the DF.
> But at least this Company is taking risks.



Many more risks like that, Nikon's stock will drop even further than it has recently. Oh, and a "pure photography" camera with a non-changeable focus screen that is no good for manual focus with fast lenses? Yeah, that's innovation…


----------



## Gantz (Sep 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Gantz said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon and Sony, with all their faults, have released cameras that impressed me one way or the other.
> ...



Right. Because i already have a ton of Canon gear collected.
And this is not about switching brands.

You may lose the love for your wife when you are getting older but you won´t divorce when you are 60 or 70 years old. 



> Many more risks like that, Nikon's stock will drop even further than it has recently.



Oh please... you sound like a broken record. ;D
Are you at least Canon shareholder so it makes sense to repeat this a thousand times?

I don´t care how much money Canon makes!!
I don´t buy a VW only because they sell more cars than Porsche.

And even the years when Porsche was in financial trouble they made great cars.

Canon makes a profit so all users have to be happy with Canons decisions.
It´s not as simple as that. 

And no, i don´t have to switch because i have something to critizise.
Just as you don´t have to divorce when you have an argument with your wife.
You divorce when the relationship is totaly ruined.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2014)

Gantz said:


> Oh please... you sound like a broken record. ;D
> I don´t care how much money Canon makes!!



I keep saying it because people continue failing to grasp the relevant concept. Canon is not in business to make products that please *you*. Canon is not in the business of creating innovations based on *your* criteria for what that means.

So when people wine on the Internet, "Why isn't Canon innovating?," "Why hasn't Canon made product X, Y, or Z?," that's the answer. If you're not happy about it, there are other brands out there. If you are unwilling to switch, well… Canon already has your money, and odds are they'll get more of it in the future.


----------



## Gantz (Sep 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Gantz said:
> 
> 
> > Oh please... you sound like a broken record. ;D
> ...



People complaint for years about Nokia, im sure some Nokia fans had the same arguments. 

Or we could say you don´t grasp that i, as customer, don´t have to care about Canons profit. Nor do i have to defend their product strategy.

Of course i want what´s best for me.
Im not a Fanboy who fights for his brand all day, i am only a customer who says what he thinks.

And i sure don´t stop saying it only because the marketing from Canons thinks i am the minority (Nokia made that mistake too).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2014)

Gantz said:


> Or we could say you don´t grasp that i, as customer, don´t have to care about Canons profit. Nor do i have to defend their product strategy.



I understand that perfectly. I'm a customer too, I have wants and needs, some of which are meant by Canon and others of which are not. 

The difference is that I can see the situation from points of you other than my own personal one. It seems a lot of people have difficulty doing that.

You keep bringing up divorce, are you bitter about something? :


----------



## Gantz (Sep 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Gantz said:
> 
> 
> > Or we could say you don´t grasp that i, as customer, don´t have to care about Canons profit. Nor do i have to defend their product strategy.
> ...



Im not even married, don´t worry. 8)
Why are you interested, you need a lawyer?

And i see both points, believe me. You are less unique than you think. 
But as im not a Fanboy i don´t have to defend the side im not on. 

I can be completely biased.


----------



## PJSOFT (Sep 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm not even sure why CR Guy called it out with a bullet point. It's a 'feature' that both the 5DIII and 1D X have, as well.



To my understanding, this is an improvement from the old 7D. If that's correct, then it's interesting enough I guess.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Sep 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> racebit said:
> 
> 
> > CR still not clarified what electronic MF means, is it manual focus or micro focus adjustment?
> ...



Seeing that they are likely trying suit something here for video users, is it possible they are adding a mode by which you can manually adjust focus by way of a couple of buttons or perhaps even a fw trap focus option? I.e. Focus between 10' and 20' over a span of 20 seconds?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > racebit said:
> ...



Those features would be nice and useful for some, and might be in there, but assuming the rumor is correct, this isn't those. The feature name "lens electronic MF" is already in use, Canon would keep naming consistent.


----------



## vscd (Sep 8, 2014)

For me it would be more interesting to fix some annoying bugs on all those new cameras, instead of inventing some (often useless) new functions. 

For example, why do we have a 30 seconds limit on the bulb-mode? There is no reason for this, but it's a pain in the ass in the field while taking longexposureshots. Why don't we get the fancy A-DEP Mode back? What's with the eye-controlled AF? Worked great in the EOS-5.

Why is there no small light on the bayonett for nighttime-lenschange (and no on the buttons eighter, but there are some cams with it like the D4S).

Why is there no stacking modus with all those lenses? STM would be perfect for it. This list could go on and on. Sometimes if i grab an old camera like a Contax or a Zenza, I find features I miss after a while.


----------

