# Already bashing the 7d MkII because of the Samsung NXI?



## CanonOregon (Sep 16, 2014)

Before we get to even try a production MkII I see so many posts, "Oh look at this brand X in comparison, wow, Canon blew it!" so I thought I'd share that I see Samsung pulled their sample images from the NXI on Flickr after being bashed on how bad they were. I didn't see those and I haven't seen production (nor has anyone else) sample images from the 7d MkII yet either so I'll hold judgement until we see the 'real deal'- and even then there's the difference of who's doing the shoot and the processing. No sense knocking cameras we've never got to use yet. (But of course, not a smart move on Samsung's part if they really were bad!)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2014)

You are, of course, speaking of a few individuals here. To some, specs tell the whole story. But the top line never does. For example, it was pointed out on another thread where people were touting the NX1's 15 fps vs. the 7DII's 10 fps, that continuous shooting on the NX1 delivers 12-bit RAW files instead of 14-bits. So even with the specs, the devil is in the details. And all of that says zippo about images the camera system (lenses, flashes, etc.) can produce.


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 16, 2014)

would i buy the canon as wildlife action shooter? .. of course!

but for me the NX1 shows how far other companys have come.
and it shows that canon is imo far to conservativ.

for every feature, except maybe the AF, im sure you can find cameras that have better specs. thought not overall better.

canon and nikon are not the lonely leaders in camera technology anymore.

about the images... well as we see in the 7D MK2 thread that means not much.


----------



## ritholtz (Sep 16, 2014)

I think, it is more like people appreciating Samsung effort in this case.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2014)

123Photog said:


> canon and nikon are not the lonely leaders in camera technology anymore.



That would be unfortunate for them if being the leader in technology was their goal. But from a business standpoint, that's a nice to have. Sony's Betamax was the best consumer videocassette technology...until it's inability to compete in the market killed it.


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 123Photog said:
> 
> 
> > canon and nikon are not the lonely leaders in camera technology anymore.
> ...



on the other side being a market leader did not help nokia, sony TV, kodak or sun.

i think you have to be agressive too and push into new territory.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2014)

123Photog said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 123Photog said:
> ...



In most cases, the examples you cite are cases of a paradigm shift in technology. Samsung cameras...aren't.


----------



## scottkinfw (Sep 16, 2014)

All great and interesting points.

To me, it is most telling when "pundits" bash the cameras without actually and objectively seeing what they can do. Instant loss of credibility.

sek


----------



## I_Miss_Minolta (Sep 16, 2014)

Good luck renting Samsung lenses in town for a photo shoot.

Canon manufactures their PRO bodies for PROFESSIONALS. Why don't you ENTHUSIASTS get that?

RE: FPS - it ONLY matters if the images are in FOCUS.
RE: IQ – the “Q” stands for “quality”, a SUBJECTIVE term...as in, “eye of the beholder.”


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 16, 2014)

scottkinfw said:


> All great and interesting points.
> 
> To me, it is most telling when "pundits" bash the cameras without actually and objectively seeing what they can do. Instant loss of credibility.
> 
> sek


I find it interesting that the people whining about "I don't want video functionality on my stills camera" are being drowned out by the "the camera is crap if it does not have 4K video" people.... 

The we have the "I want more pixels" people and the "I want less pixels" people...

talk about conflicting demands!


----------



## fragilesi (Sep 16, 2014)

It does amaze me just how many people are so invested in running Canon down. This camera sounds like it will be excellent in terms of its performance and being from Canon it will be solid, well built / durable, reliable and have a longevity that they are happy to stand behind. It will also benefit from being compatible with lenses far superior to a lot of the other makers.

This characteristics of durability, longevity and reliability are fantastically difficult to achieve. Who would bet on say a Samsung NX-1 or Sony outlasting a 7dii in an extended set of field tests . . .


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 16, 2014)

I look at it a different way. Competition is good for the consumer. If companies are nipping at your heels, then you are going to be forced to up your game.

So, I try (and sometimes fail) to avoid bashing camera companies.


----------



## slclick (Sep 16, 2014)

And to think, just a couple years ago 'Wired' warned us the end of the DSLR was nigh.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 16, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I look at it a different way. Competition is good for the consumer. If companies are nipping at your heels, then you are going to be forced to up your game.
> 
> So, I try (and sometimes fail) to avoid bashing camera companies.



+1.

At this point Samsung is an upcoming dSLR contender trying to go all out with features to attract the early adopters. I think they have taken a very bold approach, trying to marry the merits of a dSLR with those of a mirrorless system. The NX1 might not be perfect, but we should not ignore Samsung and I hope they have the financial power to learn from early failures and gradually build a great product.
Canon is an established market leader with a reputation to protect- it is better for them to offer 10 fps of great shooting as opposed to 15 fps with sketchy results. 
@Don: the voice of complaint is always louder than the voice of contentment. If the 7DII indeed had 4K video, then you'd see these 4K-advocates never appear and loud complaints about the still features that were traded off for this.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 16, 2014)

Considering the very enticing pre-order deal on the 7d2, at least here in Canada, or Chinada since out PM just sold the place out from under us, I might order it, play with it, and still be able to sell it without losing anything but time if I don't like it.

www.canonfeatures.ca/EOS-7D-MarkII/pre-order


----------



## bholliman (Sep 16, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I look at it a different way. Competition is good for the consumer. If companies are nipping at your heels, then you are going to be forced to up your game.
> 
> So, I try (and sometimes fail) to avoid bashing camera companies.



Agreed, competition is really the only thing that forces companies to come out with improved products over time.

Personally, I think the 7D2 looks like a terrific budget sport/action/wildlife body. I doubt I'll buy one as most of my photography is portrait, studio and landscape, so the 6D is fine for my needs.


----------



## jasonsim (Sep 16, 2014)

The 7D II was never intended to be a video centric DSLR. Why would a videographer need 10 FPS, 65 cross type AF points? The biggies that need 4K will pony up for the Cinematic 1D series that Canon offers. The casual YouTuber or Vemeo poster should be able to make due using a 70D. Not sure what all the fuss is about.

7D II was made for sports and wildlife photography. That is where it should excel and has no rival. 

As far as Samsung NX-whatever, I admire their efforts and it might be a fine camera. But look at the sidelines of any NFL game...what do you see? A bunch of white honking lenses! Canon EF system out sells all other systems by wide margins. They must be doing something right.

Kind regards,
Jason


----------



## jpk (Sep 17, 2014)

And we all know Samsung has a huge selection of state of the art pro optics to mount on their Uber Camera....right? 

Oh.......they don't?


----------



## Aglet (Sep 17, 2014)

jpk said:


> And we all know Samsung has a huge selection of state of the art pro optics to mount on their Uber Camera....right?
> 
> Oh.......they don't?



uhmmm... give them a year or so.
They can move pretty quick when motivated and they'll likely want to put something out to attach to this new body.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 17, 2014)

Aglet said:


> Considering the very enticing pre-order deal on the 7d2, at least here in Canada, or Chinada since out PM just sold the place out from under us, I might order it, play with it, and still be able to sell it without losing anything but time if I don't like it.
> 
> www.canonfeatures.ca/EOS-7D-MarkII/pre-order



You're kidding me!!! 
Why not in the US? :'(


----------



## Aglet (Sep 17, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> You're kidding me!!!
> Why not in the US? :'(



Dunno... we're closer to Santa Claus?..

I'm thinking I get to test drive a 7d2 and 24-70/4 L lens then sell it off for a profit on eBay. :}


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 17, 2014)

Aglet said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > You're kidding me!!!
> ...



The 24-70 will be cheaper than their new standard zoom


----------



## Aglet (Sep 17, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...


AND I get to keep the jacket!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 17, 2014)

Aglet said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



Don't tell me you're not planning on putting those amazing skins on all your iPhones and iPads.
But seriously, great deal...


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 17, 2014)

whothafunk said:


> who ever wants to have a NX1 over the 7D2 should get their eyes checked. the thing looks worse than a bucket of smashed vaginas.
> 
> what is this, 1990's?
> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/samsung-nx1/5



I don't know if 7DII and the NX1 are really head-to-head competitors. The NX1 looks good on paper for its specific segment, though. Samsung is an ambitious company- it remains to be seen what they do next.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 18, 2014)

whothafunk said:


> who ever wants to have a NX1 over the 7D2 should get their eyes checked. the thing looks worse than *a bucket of smashed vaginas.
> *
> what is this, 1990's?
> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/samsung-nx1/5


 

What?


----------



## Rob Carter (Sep 18, 2014)

I am a photographer and not a videographer. After viewing the Chuck Westhall video I was not really inspired to want to upgrade my 7D. We seem to have waited a long time for the 7D2 and I was expecting more 'must have' features.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 20, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...


HAHA! No iPhone, no iPad, never will. Hate those things and how iOS works.
Doubt it would fit my 10" Asus tab .

And, pre-order was placed earlier this week so will now wait and see what the 7d2 can do for me.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 20, 2014)

Aglet said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...




It'll look beautiful on your Asus tab, but remember: the correct way to put skins on Android phones and tabs is to put it on the LCD side so it can be covered up 
I preordered it from Henry's, too. 
Fingers crossed


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 21, 2014)

I am looking forward to reviews of the nx-1. will be interestingvto see what their BSI sensor + electronics/processors behind it are capable of. Until then i'll hold my jugdement. But i am really hoping this korean mirrorless cam can teach canons boring mirrorslappers a lesson or two. 

The pair of samsung f/2.8 zooms looks quite interesting too, although i have mot seen mtf's or sample pics. I would have loved to get a really good EF-S 50-150/2.8 IS from Canon. 

I don't have many Samsung products except some top notch SSDs but they sure know their stuff. So far their NX line was too consumer-oriented to be of interest to me... But who knows, maybe that nx1 is going to cut it. At least its no mirrorslapper .


----------



## Logan (Sep 21, 2014)

wow internet hogwash level 9000.... go back to dpreview trolls.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 21, 2014)

Rob Carter said:


> I am a photographer and not a videographer. After viewing the Chuck Westhall video I was not really inspired to want to upgrade my 7D. We seem to have waited a long time for the 7D2 and I was expecting more 'must have' features.


+1, although I won't know for sure until I can process 7D2 raw images and compare them to comparable 7D images. I was hoping that the 7D2 would be mirrorless and capable of 24 full resolution images per second. At 18MP, that would require 432MP/Sec. The Samsung does 420MP/Sec.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2014)

Bob Howland said:


> The Samsung does 420MP/Sec.



The Samsung is also saving 12-bit files during continuous shooting vs. the full 14-bits in single shot mode.


----------



## Monchoon (Sep 21, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



I preordered as well but from Camera Canada. Will you be able to get all the extra stuff being that you are from the US? You will still get a good deal if your dollar stays at around 10%.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 21, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Howland said:
> ...



Hehehe ... Spot on!


----------



## rs (Sep 21, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > The Samsung does 420MP/Sec.
> ...



I'd like to know what other shortcuts Samsung are taking to achieve 15fps. Many mirrorless cameras suffer from no viewfinder and no continuous AF at their highest frame rate.

If they have somehow nailed it with a working viewfinder and continuous AF in continuous shooting, the next thing I'd like to know is how good is its execution? Is the viewfinder good enough to let you track what you're shooting as well as a DSLR, does the AF produce as many in focus shots as its DSLR competitors, and how deep is the buffer?


----------



## Jordan23 (Sep 21, 2014)

dilbert said:


> The Samsung is also saving 12-bit files during continuous shooting vs. the full 14-bits in single shot mode.





> So what?
> 
> You keep telling us that DR (and by extension 12bits vs 14bits) isn't important except to a small number of people so therefore this difference that you've highlighted is also relatively unimportant. Or do you wish to become one of your own DRones and insist that the extra bit-depth and thus DR is all of a sudden important?


You loose colour-information as well not just DR. I guess the overall difference is small, but I'll take 14bit over 12bit so I get the most out of every shot.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Howland said:
> ...



Context, dilbert...context. As usual, it eludes you. If one is going to compare data throughput rates by multiplying MP x fps as Bob was doing, the underlying assumption is that the bit depth is the same. In this case, that assumption is not true.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 21, 2014)

bholliman said:


> Personally, I think the 7D2 looks like a terrific budget sport/action/wildlife body. I doubt I'll buy one as most of my photography is portrait, studio and landscape, so the 6D is fine for my needs.



That was scarily common-sense, balanced and reasonable - are you on the wrong forum?

I've already seen a couple on hands-on "experiences" of the NX1 suggesting shonky build quality and materials, and flaky, inaccurate AF.

Granted, these were just brief reports from Photokina; but that's apparently enough - for some - to condemn the 7D Mark II, so _in the interests of balance and all that..._


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 21, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Or do you wish to become one of your own DRones and insist that the extra bit-depth and thus DR is all of a sudden important?



Do you not understand that he's deliberately channelling you here? 

If the situation was reversed, _no question_ that you'd use it as _another_ stick to beat Canon with, because then it would suddenly be really "important"...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 21, 2014)

Rob Carter said:


> I am a photographer and not a videographer. After viewing the Chuck Westhall video I was not really inspired to want to upgrade my 7D. We seem to have waited a long time for the 7D2 and I was expecting more 'must have' features.



I'm honestly _baffled_ by comments like this - what else could anyone possibly (_reasonably_) want from the 7D Mk II?

It's a _uniquely_ capable camera, far and away the most feature-heavy APS-C body out there, bringing _umpteen_ novel features to the APS-C market, and improvements to the 7D.


----------



## Peerke (Sep 21, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 123Photog said:
> 
> 
> > canon and nikon are not the lonely leaders in camera technology anymore.
> ...



Nope, Betamax was only the best outside Europe. 
It was the V2000 system of Philips that was the best. At least here in Europe it was (I don't think it was released outside Europe). Much better than Betamax and for sure much better than VHS. You could record both sides (like the audio cassette) and the write protection were switchable levers in stead of breaking plastic. Last but not least the image quality was much better too. It killed it self because it was too late on the market and the Japaneese compitition didn't want to invest into the system (of course).

OT and not for Neuro. 
Just enjoy. The 7DII will be a fantastic camera once it is out there. Just like the 7D was 5 years ago. If one likes an other brand better, fine, buy that one. I'm so tired of all the fanatics around the world, would it be religious or camera brand. :'(


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 21, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Rob Carter said:
> 
> 
> > I am a photographer and not a videographer. After viewing the Chuck Westhall video I was not really inspired to want to upgrade my 7D. We seem to have waited a long time for the 7D2 and I was expecting more 'must have' features.
> ...



Quite simple. A better sensor with significantly less read-noise. Visibly less noise and banding in Hi-ISO. Visibly more DR at all ISOs, including 100. 

On the other hand, I do not care at all for 10 fps, don't need more than 5-6 fps. But I still want a fully sealed mg-alloy shell camera with a top-notch AF. Essentially I want a FF-sensored 5D IV as a mirrorless camera sized like Sony A7R, with Canon user interface and a sensor at least as good as the 36 MP Sony sensor ... at a price like the Sony A7R.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2014)

Peerke said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 123Photog said:
> ...



Thanks for the info!

That still supports the point - there were _two_ other competing technologies that were better, but VHS still won that particular format battle.


----------



## weixing (Sep 21, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Howland said:
> ...


Hi,
IMHO, when I buy a camera that have 14-bits RAW, I expect to have 14-bits RAW also when shooting at 15fps, so I'll be very mad if I buy this camera and found this to be true especially the Samsung specification didn't even specified that it's 12-bits RAW when shooting at 15fps...

So now the question is: Does the Samsung NX1 really shoot 15fps only at 12-bits RAW?? If yes and they didn't mentioned it, I think Samsung going to be in big problem when buyer find out because shooting at 15fps was the "WOW" feature and one of the selling point that Samsung keep mention it!

Have a nice day.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 21, 2014)

weixing said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Quote from DPreview:
_
The sensor has 28 megapixels, which produces files 6480 x 4320 in size. The sensor allows for a max sensitivity of ISO 51,200 and it can produce 14-bit Raw files in normal shooting and 12-bit when shooting continuously. Given the high resolution of the camera, it may not come as a surprise that there's no OLPF (anti-aliasing filter) on the NX1._

DPreview NX1 Hands-on


----------



## nerdo (Sep 21, 2014)

It has nothing to do with being late to the market, both Betamax and V2000 refused to release pornography on their systems. V2000 had perfect slow motion and freeze frames and play backwards, it would have been the biggest hit because porn is the reason why there was such a huge thing made out of the perfect freeze frame on VHS.

Same reason why the Laserdisc (another Philips invention / shared with Sony product) was also a failure and why the internet is such a massive succes: porn.

Give people what they want or they will walk away, sooner or later. If a product is a succes it does provide what people want no matter what you think about it.




neuroanatomist said:


> Peerke said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


----------



## Ruined (Sep 21, 2014)

I don't mean this towards any person in particular, but quite frankly some of the mirrorless advocates are starting to resemble the used car salesman who will say anything to try to get you to buy!

No matter how many rational arguments are made demonstrating why mirrorless is inadequate for pros and unappealing for normal consumers, some mirrorless folk march on with the cause by trumpeting the very few benefits mirrorless has and ignoring the slew of negatives that you get with those benefits.

So, when a product like the Samsung comes along that looks good on paper, it doesn't even matter how it performs in real life. It could produce pictures that look like a $5 disposable camera from CVS. No matter, it has a specs sheet that they can copy and paste to carry on with their mirrorless crusade as others lose (or have lost) interest in the technology.

In fact, I'd wager some mirrorless advocates are more interested in the technology itself than the actual picture they are capturing. If you can't capture the most stunning picture in the world on even a 6D (or 7D2 if you need the reach for the shot) then quite simply you are doing it wrong, and should be more concerned with your photography skills than sensor noise. Yes, things like sensor noise can be improved and it will benefit a small percentage of specific scenarios, but quite frankly given the current sensor quality in Canon cameras offering best of class sensor performance (6D for FF and 7D2 for crop) there are other more important things to focus on.

The bottom line is that mirrorless will remain a niche at least in the USA. Professionals want the best quality and best ergonomics, while consumers want the best deal and best practicality. Mirrorless fits neither of those formulas, thus it is ******* to third tier niche status that may retain a devoted fanbase but will never make it beyond that. The very best scenario for mirrorless advocates is a hybrid camera (as an optional EVF mode to augment a traditional OVF viewfinder), but based on the anemic mirrorless sales it appears that will not be a necessary investment for any of the big players.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 21, 2014)

Ruined said:


> I don't mean this towards any person in particular, but quite frankly some of the mirrorless advocates are starting to resemble the used car salesman who will say anything to try to get you to buy!
> 
> No matter how many rational arguments are made demonstrating why mirrorless is inadequate for pros and unappealing for normal consumers, some mirrorless folk march on with the cause by trumpeting the very few benefits mirrorless has and ignoring the slew of negatives that you get with those benefits.
> 
> ...


+!

Everything has it's plusses and it's minuses.... you have to look at both when doing a comparison..... and never forget that different people are going to weigh the various factors differently as people shoot a variety of subjects under a variety of conditions. There is no easy or universal answer to the question....


----------



## Ruined (Sep 21, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I completely understand that. But you are by far the minority. Mirrorless is by no means new and even the overall best mirrorless system to date (arguable Sony A7/A7R) has failed to sell in big numbers. Also, I don't think there will need to be a new set of lenses for a full frame Canon mirrorless camera. Because of the physics behind full frame (unlike APS-C), outside of a few wide angle focal lengths you don't gain anything by reducing the flange focal distance. If Canon did make a 5DIV mirrorless equivalent, I am quite sure it would still use EF lenses because there is little point on fullframe otherwise; this is in contrast to APS-C where a different set of mirrorless lenses makes sense.



> The size and weight differences are not inconsequential and if I think to the future then at some point I'm going to say "I'm sick of lugging around fat ass DSLR bodies and lenses when I can use something smaller and lighter." If I buy another DSLR it will either be the last or next to last DSLR that I ever buy.
> 
> Now maybe that's further into your future than you care to think about but not for me. In 30 or 40 years, what do you want to have hanging around YOUR neck?



You have very well describe the problems mirrorless faces:
1) Consumers sick of lugging around "fat ass DSLR bodies and lenses" are not going to be all that enthused to carry a smaller mirroless body but still have to lug around the same "fat ass" lenses nor are they interested in being stuck with a fixed 35mm prime as their only compact option. There is no getting around physics - just look at the Sony A7 lenses; the only lenses more compact than Canon EF are the 35mm and below. The Sony 50mm is actually significantly larger than the Canon EF equivalent and the 70-200 f/4 is not significantly different than the Canon EF equivalent. The lenses are more the issue than the camera with full frame mirrorless... Those consumers sick of lugging around a DSLR will buy a camera with an integrated superzoom lens or simply use there iPhone. But pros will not do that, which brings me to:

2) The "fat ass DSLR body" is actually a positive for professionals, not a negative. It's not much fun trying to handle a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS or 300mm f/2.8L IS on a body that does not give you sufficient grip for the camera lens. That is why battery grips are popular and Canon's top of the line 1DX is actually the largest of all - because pros need the grip to balance full frame lenses. As mirrorless offers no benefit to reducing the size of larger full frame lenses, the small body size becomes the problem rather than the solution. This is why Sony has not released a 70-200 f/2.8, it will be a nightmare to handle on the A7/A7S. 

3) In summary, mirrorless is still too big for consumers who want to downsize, yet it is too small for professionals that need a meaty body (6D is about as small as practical) to handle their telephoto full frame lenses which are not getting any smaller with mirrorless due to physics. Thus it becomes a tough sell to either group, resulting in the poor sales we have seen.


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 21, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I think DSLR an mirrorless cams will coexist at least 2 decades as an offer of the large camera brands. The whole live is a large heap of compromises and sometimes there is no logical OR but an AND:

DSLR: Action, "looking throu cam to check subjects without power consumption", etc.
mirrorless: If lower weight is important, tripod work, etc.


----------



## Ruined (Sep 21, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Ah yes, the ever popular evidence-unsupported "mirrorless is the future" argument 




> Wrong. With a smaller body, the distance from the lens to the sensor is wrong. That's why metabones, etc, adapters are all so thick and is why new lenses are being created.



Actually it's not wrong - that was Sony's choice because their existing lenses were unpopular so they might as well start from scratch, it does not have to be Canon's choice. Canon can maintain the flange distance yet still reduce camera size (such as reducing the height for sure, and possibly width) and it would be compatible with all EF lenses; it would operate much like a current Canon DSLR in live view mode, except without needing the extra height for the OVF. The camera would have similar height of the A7 with greater depth from front to back than the A7 but it is worth that depth tradeoff to be compatible with hundreds of popular EF lenses, and it would allow Canon to develop one lens for both systems. It would not be the smallest mirrorless camera but that is what the EOS-M line would be used for. It would be nonsensical from both a business standpoint and a consumer standpoint to develop a whole new set of FF lenses just to cater to mirrorless when maintaining the flange distance yet eliminating the OVF would result in a much smaller camera that will be compatible with all the legendary Canon EF lenses, especially since if Canon did this I'm sure niche mirrorless fans would drop the A7 like a hot potato! The problem is mirrorless is so niche even this easy score is not worth it business-wise.



> You're forgetting that m4/3s is also mirrorless and both the cameras and lenses are much smaller and lighter. Image quality compromise? Not significant.



Maybe, but depending on usage for many professionals micro 4/3 or aps-c is insufficient or at the least undesirable (unless your shots are frequently reach limited). Again, it will be a very tough sell for professionals.

For consumers, even an APS-C or m4/3 based mirrorless system is still much larger (carrying around lenses/accessories) and more complex than a fixed lens superzoom or smartphone camera. Consumers like small, simple, cheap - if you argue that they could buy a mirrorless ILC and just use one lens all the time, a fixed lens superzoom would be much more appealing to that same consumer as it would be cheaper, less complex, and have a more flexible focal range. And this is mirrorless' quandary - too small for professionals and their full frame lenses, too large for consumers who don't want to carry around an ILC and lenses mirror or not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Strange because when people calculate MP/sec, it is generally fps * MP/f and the bit depth never comes into it.



You could calculate CM/w (cartons of milk per week), but if you want to compare milk consumption between households, you need to know the volume of the carton. Assuming that analogy is not too complex for you, are you suggesting that there's no difference in file size or data content between a 12-bit and a 14-bit RAW file?

FWIW, I agree that the NX-1 has great data throughput, and that it can make sense to sacrifice a couple of bits of data for a higher frame rate (in fact, the 1D X sacrifices far more than that to go from 12 to 14 fps). But none of that is relevant to the point I was making. You brought it up because you wanted to argue. Feel better now?




dilbert said:


> I'm kind of curious how many people enable the "14fps mode". Then again I imagine that all of the sports shooters that have no time for dealing with CR2 files do enable it.



I imagine if you understood the other limitations of the 14 fps mode on the 1D X, you'd understand why many sports shooters would not want to choose that option. But we already know that technical details aren't your forte.


----------



## Jordan23 (Sep 21, 2014)

dilbert said:


> The Samsung is also saving 12-bit files during continuous shooting vs. the full 14-bits in single shot mode.





> Looks like the Canon 7D2 is just over half the speed of the Samsung NX1, which is an improvement on the 420MP/sec vs 200MP/sec where the Canon camera is under half the speed of the Samsung NX1.


Not quite, you have to take into account the actual file-sizes. 
On the Nikon 810 there's a approx. 25% difference in file-size between 12bit and 14bit RAW-files. 
We don't know much about 12bit on the NX1 yet, but let's assume it's approx. 25% smaller than the 14bit files. That gives 12bit RAW files of 21mb. 

15fps X 21mb = 315 mb , which would been enough for a nice 11 fps with 14bits RAW. 

The 14 fps/jpg on the 1DX is a feature, not a hidden "ugly" surprise.


----------



## fragilesi (Sep 21, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Howland said:
> ...



Wasn't he just pointing out a fact? He didn't make anything out of it or (unlike your good self and other esteemed DRones suggest that it was significant).


----------



## Jordan23 (Sep 21, 2014)

dilbert said:


> But given that Canon's 1DX doesn't have more than 12 stops of DR and that stops of DR are bits then it even seems pointless for Canon to have 14bits of raw, don't you agree?


It's quite a lot of colour-information in those 2 bits, not just DR.


----------



## FEBS (Sep 21, 2014)

123Photog said:


> would i buy the canon as wildlife action shooter? .. of course!
> 
> but for me the NX1 shows how far other companys have come.
> and it shows that canon is imo far to conservativ.
> ...



I agree that you might find a camera for every point of the spec that is better then the 7D2. But what does that say? That Canon is conservative? NO. That only says that those other camera take a marketing decision to be better on a specific point then all the others, BUT they also make a lot of compromises for the other specs. Just point me a DSLR camera that has better overall spec then the 7D2 right now, for a action photographer? Because that's the target for Canon with this camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming that analogy is not too complex for you, are you suggesting that there's no difference in file size or data content between a 12-bit and a 14-bit RAW file?
> ...



So you _are_ suggesting that there's no difference in file size between a 12-bit and a 14-bit RAW file. 

I haven't seen Samsung specs, but Nikon allows a choice between 12- and 14-bit, and the lower bit depth allows a deeper buffer in terms of number of shots. 

Nikon D810 uncompressed RAW, 12-bit: 55.9 MB
Nikon D810 uncompressed RAW, 14-bit: 73.2 MB

That's a file size increase of ~30% going from 12- to 14-bit. 

You _really_ should stop trying to argue technical details, you succeed only in making yourself appear inept.


----------



## FEBS (Sep 21, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > Rob Carter said:
> ...



You simple don't get the point. The 7D2 is not for you in that case. You don't matter fps. You even tell that you would like a FF as a mirrorless. So why blaming the 7D2? It seems that the Sony A7 is your choice already. Please do tell Sony that they should incorporate a fully sealed mg-alloy shell with a top-notch AF for their A7R.


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 22, 2014)

Jordan23 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > But given that Canon's 1DX doesn't have more than 12 stops of DR and that stops of DR are bits then it even seems pointless for Canon to have 14bits of raw, don't you agree?
> ...



AFAIK, each RAW pixel value is actually the value of a single-color subpixel. The physical location of that subpixel determines what color it is, based on what color filter is in front of that subpixel. So a 14-bit RAW pixel value is literally just a black-and-white (well, red-and-white or blue-and-white or green-and-white or whatever) value telling the amount of a single color.

BTW, where do you get 12 stops of DR? By my count, it would take 17 bits (well, slightly more than 16) to properly represent the full well capacity of the 1DX sensor at low ISO. That should mean that it has >16 stops of DR.


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nikon D810 uncompressed RAW, 12-bit: 55.9 MB
> Nikon D810 uncompressed RAW, 14-bit: 73.2 MB
> 
> That's a file size increase of ~30% going from 12- to 14-bit.



I wonder why. Mathematically, I'd expect it to be only about a 17% increase. I wonder if they're doing something lame like using 16 bits instead of 14 to save on CPU bit shift overhead.... 

Edit: 55.9 / 12 * 16 = 74.53 MB, so when you factor in the fact that part of it is a JPEG preview, EXIF data, etc. that doesn't expand, I'd say it's pretty likely that they're really writing it out as 16-bit data.


----------



## jrista (Sep 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > The Samsung does 420MP/Sec.
> ...



Which probably isn't as big an issue as people think it is. First, Canon doesn't get the full benefit of 14-bit RAW. They lose at least two bits to noise at low ISO. The main thing they gain is finer tonality. 

At high ISO, it's a wash. The lower saturation point implicitly reduced tonality. If you figure that your more likely to be using a higher ISO than a lower ISO at 15fps, your not going to be gathering enough data to take advantage of 14 bits anyway.

The only time the use of 12-bit is going to be a real issue is when shooting at a high frame rate at ISO 100 and maybe 200. 

I think it would be interesting to see Canon offer a lower bit depth option if it meant we could get a higher frame rate in the 7D II. If you shoot at higher ISO when using higher framerate, it's more efficient.


----------



## jrista (Sep 22, 2014)

weixing said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I'm curious, though. When you shoot at high FPS, are you also at higher ISO, like 800, 1600, 3200? You aren't going to get the same tonal range at those ISOs, meaning the use of 14 bits isn't much of a benefit, if any at all. Not just on the DR front, but on the tonal range front...you don't have the tones or the color fidelity at high ISO to justify 14-bit data anyway. The use of 12-bit files is a bummer for lower ISO settings, but if your most likely to be shooting at higher ISO anyway, it really isn't that big of a deal. It's more efficient...smaller data files, meaning you can fit more on a memory card. At 15fps, that could be a real bonus.


----------



## jrista (Sep 22, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Jordan23 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



They affect the entire tonal range. The bottom two bits add dynamic range, and they also increase the total number of recordable brightness levels. Shadows are inherently sparse, so while adding two bits can have a significant effect on DR, it has a minimal effect on the darkest tones because they are inherently low SNR. Moving from 12-bit to 14-bit means you go from 4096 levels to 16394 levels. A shadow pixel that used 2 bits worth of levels in the 12-bit image is still going to use 2 bits in the 14-bit image. However a highlight pixel that used 12 bits worth of levels in the 12-bit image is going to use 14 bits worth of levels in the 14-bit image. An 18% gray pixel that used 6 bits worth of levels in the 12-bit image is going to use 7 bits in the 14-bit image. 

To put that in terms of actual useful levels of information, an image that fades from black to 18% gray is going to have 8192 tonal levels of gradation in a 14-bit image, while only a mere 2048 tonal levels of gradation in 12-bit image. The gradient is smoother with 14 bits, even in a camera that has so much read noise it cannot realize the full dynamic range potential those bits may allow.

At higher ISO, this isn't as important. Drop one stop from ISO 100 to ISO 200, and you lose half your tonality right there. You still benefit from 14 bits at ISO 200, but not as much. Drop to ISO 400, and having 14 bits is really no different than having 12 bits, it's 4096 "real" levels regardless (amplification ultimately just wastes levels with duplicate information when you have more bits than you need, unless some kind of dithering is applied...I honestly don't know if the ACD units or any other component in modern cameras dither or not.) Beyond ISO 400, there isn't any useful benefit to having more bits.


----------



## jrista (Sep 22, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Jordan23 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Generally speaking that (the bolded) is correct, however, from what I gather about Samsung's NX1 design, they actually switch the readout to 12-bit conversion via the ADC. They do that SO THAT they can achieve 15fps.

First, modern sensors always have a border of masked and inactive pixels. The total pixel count that is read off the sensor is 31 million. So, assuming 31mp, at 14-bit, at 15fps:

((31,000,000 * 14) / 8) * 15 = 813,750,000byte/sec

To read out 31 megapixels fifteen times per second, they would actually need a data throughput of 814MB/s minimum. There is additional overhead for metadata and whatnot, so I'd say a safe throughput is 820MB/s. However, if we assume that the data coming off the ADC is actually 12 bits:

((31,000,000 * 12) / 8) * 15 = 697,500,000byte/sec

The Samsung needs about 700MB/s throughput to achieve 15 fps at 12-bit readout. I don't really know if it's that much harder to make a DSP that can process 820MB/s vs. 700MB/s, but either way, the processor is faster than DIGIC 5+, which I calculated as having 250MB/s data throughput per chip (500MB/s total). This is quite a bit faster than the 7D II even needs in order to read images out at 10fps:

((21,000,000 * 14) / 8) * 10 = 367,500,000byte/sec

So the 7D II's dual DIGIC 6 don't even need to work as hard (assuming they aren't doing extra noise reduction work and whatnot, which we know they are) as the dual DIGIC 5+ in the 1D X. If we just assume that the total potential throughput of the 7D II is 400MB/s with overhead, each DIGIC 6 is only processing at 200MB/s, which is less than the DIGIC 5+. I don't know how much additional processing power the DIGIC 6 needs to do all the things it does, but let's assume it's double. That would mean a pair of DIGIC 6's process at 800MB/s, which is still short of the 820MB/s necessary to read out 15 frames per second in full 14-bit quality. (That's probably not even accurate, as it would be an image processing pipeline...the input rate from the ADCs would still probably be at most 200MB/s per DIGIC 6, it's just that the chip probably does more work "per cycle" for lack of a better term, as information moves through the various stages of the pipeline.)

So, it's not surprising to me that Samsung opted to drop the bit depth at high frame rate. It allowed them to get away with DSP(s) (I don't know if it uses two) that operate at a slower overall throughput, which probably saved on cost. If Samsung made the assumption that most 15fps shooting would be done at ISO 400 and up, then the use of 12 bits does not represent a loss in either dynamic range nor tonal levels nor color fidelity, so the savings was probably worth it, even if it costs them a few sales because some photographers need 15fps with full 14-bit data at ISO 100 or 200.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 22, 2014)

We'll soon enough get full info on NX-1 IQ and capabilities ... including comparison pics for 12bit and 14bit RAWs as soon as the NX-1 will be out in the hands of reviewers and users. 

Does anyone have a quick link to identically shot comparison pictures @ 12 vs. 14 bit RAWs for a given recent Nikon model? 

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/06/05/nef-file-types-and-sizes-what-effect-do-bit-depth-and-compression-have-on-raw-files/







conclusion:


> 01 8-bit JPEGs store 256 shades per channel. That’s fine, until you start wanting to heavily manipulate your images.
> 
> 02 12-bit NEFs capture 4096 shades per channel. This gives much smoother tones.
> 
> 03 14-bit NEFs capture 16,384 shades per channel, *but you often won’t be able to see any difference next to 12-bit NEFs.*


----------



## jrista (Sep 22, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



It's not impossible that Samsung is doing higher bit depth processing in their post-ADC pipeline, or saving the data to memory as 14-bit data. Sony BionzX does that...the sensor readout is 14-bit, the processing pipeline is 16-bit, however then, sadly, they save the data to their memory card with lossy compression. They still gain from the higher bit depth processing, but it still would be better if they stored full raw pixels, instead of compressed information.

Given that Samsung explicitly calls out 12-bit data for high speed shooting, I think it's safe to say they are storing the information in 12-bit in the data file. Otherwise, they could very well ADC at 12-bit, then use a 16-bit processing pipeline to perform dithering of the information, and save it back out as 14-bit information that was better than 12-bit, but maybe still not quite as good as an original 14-bit read. If they were doing that, I think they would have specified as much.


----------

