And it's interesting that some improvements for astro photography are awesome (and they are) but then if say some landscape (not that only landscape shooters can benefit) shooter is looking for a 3 stops improvement, that's just minor nonsense and it's all on the photographer, people have made great pics forever so why should they even care, it just says something about the photographer doesn't it.
If a competitor had a >20 stop sensor that eliminated GND filters and HDR, that would be a "game changer" and would warrant the endless discussion and hand wringing we see here.
As is there are a couple stops of difference, which can be useful at times, but which simply cannot replace the techniques landscape photographers have used for years and decades. jrista's own interior shot demo that was here a while back showed two things. One, the Sony had more shadow latitude and the shadows were of higher quality. Two, even the Sony could not be stretched to retain the highlights and at the same time yield shadow quality that would be acceptable for publication. With a paying client you would be bracketing on either camera.
1. an extra 2-3 stops over what Canon delivers now actually would make a big difference for a lot of the shots where it matters at all. It's exactly what you'd need to pull off many dappled forest scenes and such, even if it won't cover every single HDR shot.
2. those GNDs only work for a very, very few simple types of scenes. They are totally useless for most scenes including virtually any forest scene or any of the jrista interior type shots. They are good for the classic ground/horizon/air, water/horizon/air shots and not much else.
3. multi-shot HDR can work in more scenarios, but it doesn't work out that nicely when there is motion be it from water, a breeze or subject's own motion. It also tends to require slow tripod work (you can sometimes do hand-held, but it tends to leave at least some weird artifacts here and there that can be a beast to clean up; even if you can always avoid that somehow, it not too uncommonly will put the longest exposed frame into the danger zone for handshake motion blur) and more time in all cases. Sometimes when the light is changing fast that means you miss a lot of different potential takes on an area. Other times it might meaning annoying others you are with or yourself and cut down enjoyment of the wonderful view.
If you're into sports, the 7D II's AF and buffer make a real difference. If you're into astro, it's sensor characteristics apparently make a notable difference. If you're into landscapes...well...for all the words spilled on the Internet over DR and DxO I'm not sure it has ever actually resulted in a print that's observably better then another print. It's hard to even make the tripod/hand held argument when you can easily hand hold 2-3 frame brackets with no IS, and 5-7 with the latest IS lenses.
LOL how typical. Every single thing the Canon is best at makes a real difference, but anything it's not absolutely doesn't matter expect just barely at all in the only the most extreme scenarios. LOL. How typical.
Nevermind that such serious level of astro photography is even a thing carried out far more rarely by the average user than high HDR regular shooting at low ISO and that the improvement it brings over the previous model is arguably not even quite as noticeable as exmor vs canon for low ISO high DR. But of course since the 7D2 improves the astro bit it's a critical improvement and since they didn't fix the low ISO DR thing that's a minor thing barely relevant to anyone and even to those it is, it still isn't really relevant anyway. Nice.
Listen I've said the 7D2 buffer,fps, AF should make it a beast for that stuff. And the improvements over the prior model for astro look cool. But so would have an improvement for low ISO DR (although the 7D2 can maybe get away without a bit more easily than say a 5D4 could).
I am curious as to what Canon's management thinks of DxO and DR, if anything.
They seem to be trying to ignore it (witness Maesada's interview where he plays the clueless fool who has never heard of DxO or that Canon DSLR sensors are behind competition in any way).
And for the record I would love to see this improved. I just don't understand the obsession with it.
There's less difference today between the "weakest" sensor in an entry level, small format (m43, APS-C, FF) ILC and the best sensors in the most expensive small format ILCs then ever before. Yet some how we are spending more time talking about those differences, and people (not you specifically, nor jrista)
When it comes to low ISO DR the differences are actually greater in recent years than in years past, not lesser.
on the Internet are becoming more arrogant about the performance of "their" sensor. It gets annoying, which is why you see the push back you are complaining about.
Personally I saw the bashing 'pushback' start first and then after a long time of that many either stopped posting or starting pushing back at defenders of the sacred honor of Canon after getting sick of all the personal insults being tossed for years. I was a bit sad to see Roger even start heading down that line, even if more gently than many, by appearing to call out any photographer who had a need for exmor-like low ISO DR and coming awfully close to the old learn how to shoot you crappy photographer, but having nothing but praise for his own type who liked the dark current improvements.