It's a sure sign that the 7D will soon be replaced with a mirrorless APS-H 1D-style camera called the 3Dx.With 8K video and the infamous 120Mpixel sensor
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.
What I want to draw attention to is where you effectively raise the specter of DxO being false on the web page, which is in completely in line with how you characterize their ratings, etc. There was no call for you to make that remark or even to suggest that and in that, it is you who is being false. Hide, if you like, behind the fact that you listed other options but the fact remains you went out of your way to allege that DxO was being false on their web site when you knew they weren't.
I know nothing of the sort
So now you're denying that you read the web page with the company logos and thus didn't read the part where DxO said that they were only listing some of their customers? Which is it? That you read the entire page and at the time of suggested that DxO were being false in their claims about the "top 10" fully aware that the logos presented weren't fully representative of their customer base or that you made the suggestion that DxO's exclusion of Canon was because you hadn't read what DxO printed on their web page properly?
Is there a community college near you that offers basic reading comprehension and logical reasoning courses? You really might want to consider taking one. Honestly, I'm not trying to be insulting (although I admit it could be taken as such). You really seem to have difficulty grasping the meaning of written statements, not just mine but those of many people on these forums.
To clarify...and read carefully, please. DxO does not include Canon's logo among their 'sample of clients' which include 'all of the top ten DSC manufacturers'. Given Canon's status in the industry (#1 dSLR manufacturer for >10 years, and one of the top 10 compact camera makers), it would be a foolish business decision to not display Canon's logo if they were able to do so. I assume DxO are not fools, so what are the other possible reasons to exclude Canon's logo? The most likely (and therefore, first-listed) reason is that Canon did not give them permission to display their logo. That's a reasonably common practice - I work for a Fortune 100 company, many small vendors request permission to include our logo on their list of clients, and for the most part we deny those requests. The other possible reason is that DxO is making a misleading statement on their website. Are they 'lying'? It's shades of gray. They state "all of the top ten DSC manufacturers" but don't specify what they mean by 'top ten'. Perhaps they mean 'top ten based on DxOMark Sensor Scores' and maybe Canon is not on that list. Perhaps they mean 'top ten based on sales in France' and maybe Canon is not on that list.
Regardless, my statement which you call out, "I know nothing of the sort," immediately followed and was mainly in reference to your final statement: "...you went out of your way to allege that DxO was being false on their web site when you knew they weren't." As I stated, DxO has a history of 'being false on their website'...they have been guilty of that many times, so it's a reasonable possibility that it may be the case with this particular issue.
Perhaps you could state your reasoning which supports the idea that DxO is being truthful that their client list includes 'all of the top ten DSC manufacturers' as defined in a relevant way (any relevant way, e.g. global sales, would place Canon on that list), but has chosen not to display the logo of the #1 dSLR maker and BusinessWeek's #35 global brand (link) among their list of clients. What can you come up with, besides 'Canon didn't permit it' (which I have already suggested as the most likely possibility), DxO is accommodating one or more of the clients more important to them (e.g., they are 'joined at the hip with Nikon', which you have been arguing against), or DxO are makes foolish business decisions?
Actually, I expect your response to be something pithy like 'we can't know' or 'it doesn't matter,' – both of which are copouts to which you've resorted in the past.
all depends on what you set your custom settings to......Even better!Here's hoping they have a much simplified mode dial on the 7D2....
Could I suggest the following layout.....
Add C1-5, and I'd be happy.
Wow....that would make it essentially useless for fast-moving subjects in fast-changing light.
Even better!Here's hoping they have a much simplified mode dial on the 7D2....
Could I suggest the following layout.....
Add C1-5, and I'd be happy.
agreed in principalBut...but...the DR, man...you're completely ignoring the DReaded DR issue!!!
I struggle with DR all the time at high ISO. I've never had a situation where Canon's base ISO DR was insufficient AND a couple more stops would have made it sufficient. I've had one situation where 20 more stops would have made it sufficient, but I don't think even the lenses can support that much DR.
The line says that 4-5% dont buy lenses other than the kit lens.
Which line? The one in the original Japanese, or the one in the poor machine-translation of the original?
70 million cameras, 100 million lenses – 1.43 lenses/body isn't consistent with 95% of people buying additional lenses.
5% of 70,000,000 cameras is 3,500,000
That means 66,500,000 kits where there is a one to one ration of lens to camera.
That leaves 33,500,000 lenses which were not bought with the camera.
On average, that would mean the 5% of camera owners (3,500,000) have ~9.6 lenses each.
Exactly!no news here: "we look forward to the advent of high-resolution model of the EOS". We are all looking forward to that. This poor guy works for Canon and he is looking forward to the same thing we are.
Pretty much my thoughts.
That there is heresy! How dare you blaspheme and validate Nikon's 36MP D800/D810 or Sony's cameras?
You should be saying that a high MP will be hard to work with, your computer is not fast enough, storage cards too small, pixels will be smaller and noisier, etc.
You'd think they'd put AFMA in it. It counts as a good user feature but really it also helps Canon increase user satisfaction by letting owners fix any minor manufacturing boo boos themselves.
Why wouldn't they do that? Otherwise most people with slightly out of whack lenses or bodies just suffer with it and tell people their Canon just wasn't very sharp. Maybe they buy a Pentax next time.
Then others have to deal with the hassle of sending their body and one favorite lens off for adjustment at Canon which is no fun for either the owner or for Canon, and it is all avoidable if they'd just include AFMA.
If the ketchup companies are smart enough to add "shake well before serving" to their labels, so that the user is more likely to have a positive experience with their condiments, why would a camera maker leave out AFMA?
If I were canon, the thought of allowing afma to the mass population of ma and pa photographers would be terrifying to me and my call centers. Afma is a great tool for those who know how to use it, but any increase in my call center activity would reduce my profit margin on the rebel line. Enthusiasts, sure offer this option to allow them to grow with their camera. Most who can afford a single digit model probably have an idea of what they are doing. Mainstream usually has no clue what they are doing, but they don't know it. All they know is that if they screw it up, it would be canon's fault for making such crappy gear and social media would spread that word.
If anything, it might reduce calls, since it is VERY common that lens and body are not matched and at least this might allow a few to get things matched. And it's just NOT rocket science, it's ridiculous how fearful everyone has become of any with a hint of tech over the last couple decades, everything has been dumbed down and then dumbed down some more.
And if someone is not capable of resetting to zero, if they mess it up, then they are not capable of using a DSLR in the first place. I mean how hard is it to simply hit reset or place MFA back to 0? If you can turn the knob to +3 or -3 you can also turn it back to 0.
food for thought from another topic ---http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21908.msg417183;topicseen#new --- only 5% of the buying public buys more than 1 lens apparently. That leaves 95% with a kit lens. What to venture a bet as to what percentage of that 95% never even take a peek at their manual? What percentage of that 95% even knows what an AF point is? LOL....that is why AFMA won't be in a rebel! How many users are in P mode would end up messing with their AFMA because they have blurry shots - because they don't know their shooting at a slow SS? Or because the AF is locking on to other things (all point active!!!). I would love to have more faith in humanity that this wouldn't happen, but, time and time again I get questions from the first time DSLR user and yup, theynever even opened the manual, hell they don't know where it is and ----yeah they look at me like I'm Satan for asking....I paid $$$$ for this and it should just work. UGGGGGG....no no no no no....AFMA just has no place in the rebel line....