October 25, 2014, 11:02:41 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Stu_bert

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 17
16
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 07:20:07 AM »
@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...

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...  ::)

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.

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. :P 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.

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)....

17
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 07:10:45 AM »
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!

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.

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....

19
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 07:48:12 PM »
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....

20
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 07:45:46 PM »
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.


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.

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.....

21
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 07:33:57 PM »
@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...

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...  ::)

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.

22
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 08:48:24 AM »
@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.


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...

23
EOS Bodies / Re: Update on the EOS 7D Mark II Spec List
« on: August 23, 2014, 09:13:19 PM »
Keith at Northlight seems to have got confirmation from a source that the specs are "pretty solid"....

24
EOS Bodies / Re: Update on the EOS 7D Mark II Spec List
« on: August 23, 2014, 09:07:24 PM »
There is a third possibility...

To do 4K right requires 4 times the computing power as 2K video. That makes a lot of heat and drains batteries fast... and there is a real possibility that the problems with dissipating the heat make it impractical in a DSLR body unless you add in heatsinks, and that is a negative to all those using it for stills. Obviously, a 1D-C has the thermal mass, battery capacity, and radiative surface to handle this, but does a smaller body?

Does the Panasonic GH4 not do 4K right?  It certainly doesn't have a large thermal mass or space for big heat sinks inside.
Good point, but what does it use to process the video.... discrete hardware or software? I wonder how much heat the digic chips on a Canon make running that hard.....

Even a GoPro will shoot 4K at 15fps and not overheat, but they definitely use dedicated hardware.

GH4 has a smaller sensor IIRC....
Gigabyte switches do not consume 4x more power than a 100Mb switch I believe.
Each generation of Intel chip does more with less power.

I'm not sure therefore that the 4x increase in data bandwidth equates to significantly more power, but I might be wrong  :D

25
EOS Bodies / Re: Update on the EOS 7D Mark II Spec List
« on: August 23, 2014, 09:02:02 PM »
I hear that the boys over at Red is expecting a huge upswing of sales of the Epic Dragon. Must be that they are able to deliver all the video and stills capacity that is needed, and people don't even need to dump their L lenses. ;)

If you have a spare 20K to spare....  :D

26
EOS Bodies / Re: Update on the EOS 7D Mark II Spec List
« on: August 23, 2014, 09:01:26 PM »
In Germany a lot of professional photographers Change to Sony

In Podunk, Michigan a lot of professional photographers have switched to watercolors and canvas.  I expect that'll have about the same impact on Canon's market share.

ROFLMAO  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 23, 2014, 08:50:29 PM »
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.

Quote
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!

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.


28
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 23, 2014, 08:29:52 PM »
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.

I think the DPAF feature took a while to develop....

29
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 23, 2014, 09:36:14 AM »
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.

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...

30
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 23, 2014, 09:33:01 AM »
Quote
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....

+1

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 17