February 01, 2015, 03:59:15 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 - ahsanford

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 72
EOS Bodies / Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.
« on: November 05, 2014, 01:32:59 PM »
While I expect the reality to set in after all the hype dies down, I also do not value DXO's secret numbering system, nor their claiming to rate a camera without actually testing it as a camera.
They test a sensor and rate the camera by low ISO results, even though high ISO over 400 is likely used by most of the owners simply because they get a small aperture kit lens with it.
They do not test AF capability, or many of the other camera characteristics.
I don't care if they rated it as the best camera or the worst, their numerical rating system does not point a buyer toward what he needs to buy for his use.

In fairness, Mt Spokane, it's a Sensor Score and listed as such. (That's about all I'll ever do to back up DXO.)

- A

EOS Bodies / Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.
« on: November 05, 2014, 01:21:35 PM »
On the head to head link vs. the original 7D:

"From the sensor performance point of view, a four-point lead over its predecessor is really only a modest advancement. That’s the equivalent to around 1/3-stop improvement in color sensitivity, just 0.1 Ev in DR (albeit at base ISO) and about a 1/3-stop improvement in low-light sensitivity."

Ouch.  I expected DXO to thrash the sensor from a resolution and low-ISO DR perspective, but the statement of only a 1/3 stop improvement in low light (if substantiated) is damning. 

In contrast, DPReview's sample shots suggested that the 7D2 was about a full stop better than the 7D.

Mr. Carnathan's ISO comparisons can't come quickly enough now. 

- A

EOS Bodies / The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.
« on: November 05, 2014, 01:15:19 PM »

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Continue Using Canon Sensors in DSLRs
« on: November 05, 2014, 10:35:10 AM »

You folks realize that Nikon has dozens of disgruntled forum threads talking about switching to Canon, right?

For us, it's their sensors.  For them, it's our lens portfolio, high burst rate photography, and video.  For Sony, it's a desire to have a full stable of lenses without adapters, to have pro build quality, or to have a competent AF system (depending on your rig).

No one company offers the best tech at everything.  The grass is always greener, but apparently it's never green enough to cause an exodus.

- A

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Continue Using Canon Sensors in DSLRs
« on: November 03, 2014, 06:25:05 PM »
Neuroanatomist, for those of us who don't plan on spending 1DX money, the 7D2 looks like a pretty good action camera, whatever the DXO sensor score may end up being. In the real world, I will get a lot of use out of a camera and lens I can afford and that I can actually haul around and shoot hand-held. The 1DX should be better.

I am not Neuro's publicist, but I think his emoticon-heavy putdown was aimed at DXO's scoring system and not the 7D2.

The 7D2 appears to be a stellar camera for the money.  I'd get one for sure if I was into sports, wildlife, birding, etc.  But as it stands, I don't shoot that sort of stuff, so the 16-200mm reach on my 5D3 suits me perfectly.

- A

Most reviewers are declaring the 7DII the best APS-C camera made and noting that no one else has a camera that can compete against it.

Yeah, but that's only because the DxOMark Scores haven't come out yet.  Once that happens, all those 7DII reviewers will realize how foolish they look for touting a camera that scores no better than the 70D, and nearly the same as the original (now so dated as to be decrepit) 7D.  Heck, the D7100 gets a better Sports Score than the 7D(inosaur), I'm sure it'll beat the 7DII (no need to consider AF, fps or buffer for Sports, after all).

Reviewers will have egg on their face, and no one will buy the 7DII. 

 ::) ::) ::)

Neuro's tongue-in-cheek notwithstanding, I am curious to see the brouhaha that comes of DXO stating that Canon has (hypothetically) only improved one point over the 7D in their absurd rating system after 5 years of development.

There's already a thunderous din about how the 7D2 preliminarily appears to offer the same high ISO performance as the 70D, and only offers a stop better performance than the 7D (again: after five years).  I'm still waiting for the Carnathans of the world to demonstrate this more thoroughly, but if substantiated, I can only imagine the ruckus that will ensue across the world's photo forums.   :P

There's so much more to a camera than a sensor, but it is our favorite thing to obsess about, isn't it?

- A

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Continue Using Canon Sensors in DSLRs
« on: November 03, 2014, 01:08:34 PM »
Most pros could not care less about the slight dynamic range differences between sensors.

That's right. I even would go further... they know, that the difference changes in higher ISO-Ranges. For sports- or Indoorphotography you usually don't use anything below ISO800. On sportevents because of the longer lenses and inside rooms because of the available light.

So let's check the differences of two nearly equally released and categoritzed cams:

Sure.   It's exactly those sort of charts that have people say portraiture and landscape does well with Nikon and events, photojournalism and sports are Canon's territory.  But every type of shooter has both Canon and Nikon users and competent folks net great shots.  Talent trumps the tech unless you are shooting yetis in darkness at ISO 2 Million.

- A

Top end gear will be entirely an in-house affair for Canon until they start losing pros in large enough numbers *expressly for sensor reasons* (DR, resolution, etc.).

Most pros could not care less about the slight dynamic range differences between sensors.

Absolutely, you are correct, but landscape shooters would love more low-ISO DR.  It seems the D800/800E/810 + that epic 14-24 lens is a great landscape combination for Nikon in that regard.  Don't get me wrong, I love the new 16-35 F/4L IS on my 5D3, but the majority of landscape stories I read / videos I see tout that Nikon combination as the one to beat.

I personally hope Canon does not expend too many resources on making tiny improvements to sensors. There are much bigger threats out there (light field cameras, for example, represent a much bigger threat because they are truly disruptive technology).

Agree that lightfield tech could become powerfully disruptive someday, but I think most people would argue that mirrorless will be far more disruptive in the mid-term.

- A

I honestly don't think Canon will be using a Sony-manufactured sensor. Even if it is a "Canon-designed" sensor, it just doesn't seem like either Canon nor Sony would work together as competitors like that. I think Canon is also WAAAY too prideful to step out and even try that...given the last interview with Masaya Maeda where he basically bold-faced lied about the state of their sensor tech.


Pride pride pride.  Top end gear will be entirely an in-house affair for Canon until they start losing pros in large enough numbers *expressly for sensor reasons* (DR, resolution, etc.).

I don't put stock in DXO's thoughts about Canon's sensors, but there is a fundamental argument that higher resolution and higher DR (at lower ISO) is a weak point for Canon's most demanding users.  But the fact that the 5D3 is still sitting near its original asking price some 2.5 years later says that it's still a very desirable camera (or Canon is losing its shirt to make a point about protecting price). 

But there must come a point where everything else that Canon does well -- that epic stable of glass, CPS, the ergonomics, reliability, access to massive third-party ecosystem of products, etc. -- could eventually be overpowered by a concern over Canon's sensors.  Canon's sky is not falling by any means, but if I'm an executive at Canon, the "Threats of losing pros" on my SWOT list would be as follows:

  • The sensor.
  • The sensor.
  • The sensor.
  • That silly mirrorless thing we're supposed to be working on.
  • The sensor.


- A

EOS Bodies / Re: DPR Adds Studio Samples for EOS 7D Mark II
« on: October 29, 2014, 10:21:27 AM »
Anyone know how DPR converted the RAWS? I assume latest DPP but without knowing for sure (and what settings were used) this all seems rather like the initial 5D3 threads, inaccurate.


Agree, so many unknowns here.  I strongly prefer Bryan Carnathan's mouseover samples like these he did for the 5D3 back in 2012, where he lists all settings:


Once he gets his production copy, his 7D2 data will be published quickly, so I would check back at that site.

- A

EOS Bodies / Re: DPR Adds Studio Samples for EOS 7D Mark II
« on: October 29, 2014, 12:48:28 AM »
Everyone's eyes are a little different with these comparisons.

I believe that we shouldn't be looking at JPG shots unless we can back out just how much NR was used, either in-camera or if any was done in post.  Based on the clear differences between the RAW shots and the JPG with this DPReview tool, it appears that the RAW files are not noise reduced and the JPGs are quite heavily noise reduced.

And as each camera body does NR slightly differently, we should be comparing RAW for the cleanest sensor comparison.

So with my eyes looking at RAW shots (center only), I saw the following shots showing similar levels of noise:

5D3 at 6400
7D2 at 3200
7D at 1600

That would imply -- admittedly, ever-so-crudely -- that the 7D2 offers one stop better noise performance than the 7D, yet still one stop worse than the 5D3.  That's respectable from a 'look how close APS-C can get to FF these days!' perspective.  But on the other hand, given the the five years since the 7D was released, current 7D owners might feel a bit let down on how little Canon have improved the noise performance of the sensor.

- A

Reviews / Re: Gizmodo reviews the Canon 7D Mark II
« on: October 21, 2014, 05:46:13 PM »
Im buying it, and I generally agree with the review.  I dont carry my 7D much now unless its for birds or underwater, I bought a 6D for people, but even that with lenses is starting to feel relatively heavy, given what image quality you can get with smaller cameras now for walkaround photography.

The market has changed, and most people wont want what this camera offers in exchange for the downsides for your average joe - if they just bought it on the basis of the plaudits it will get without realising its relative specialisation in todays market, they would be shortchanged.

The wildcard is, of course, how many people see the 7D2 as a specialist's tool and how many see it as a roundly robust camera for general photography?

Enthusiasts see the 7D2 as being a camera for the reach-obsessed and budget constrained.  And there are sports/wildlife/birding folks out there that will be able to do 95% as much with a 7D2 + 400 prime as those with a 1DX + 600 prime for a ton less money.

But, let's face it, those folks have to be only, what, five percent of the eventual people that will end up buying a 7D2?  Sure, we talk about them.  Sure, the value proposition is through the roof for those folks.  But how many really are there?

So, yes, Gizmodo readers and Best Buy walk-in dudes/dudettes will buy one because it's new, it's powerful, and it's built to last.  They aren't hung up on SLR footprint, size, weight, etc.  They also aren't hung up on needing a FF sensor.  But man, will it nail the shot of their kid at a school concert, sporting event, family trip, etc.

Plus, I also think it's a relative top-end camera for the beginning pro photographer (the small-town photjournalist was a great comment someone made) who is on a tight budget.  If a starting photog has $2-3k to invest in a new system, not all of them will take Canon/Nikon's entry level FF rigs -- they very well may see a better value in a loaded APS-C rig or a mirrorless APS-C rig, a few lenses, and a flash.

- A

Reviews / Re: Gizmodo reviews the Canon 7D Mark II
« on: October 21, 2014, 05:23:19 PM »
I'm just thinking, folks like us do huge amounts of our own research before buying our gear so why would Canon put a pre-production model into the hands of a less than capable reviewer, such as Gizmodo?

As stated before, large gadget/tech sites like Gizmodo, Engadget, Wired, CNET, etc. have massive readerships -- likely far in excess of even the most visited photography writing sites/blogs.  So I'm not surprised at all that they got a pre-production model.  I'd imagine that tech editors at other established institutions like Consumer Reports, NY Times, etc. were given early access as well. 

To answer your question, why does a great band with a loyal fanbase choose to tour as an opening act for a much larger band? Exposure, exposure, exposure. Canon didn't need to push much message at folks like us -- I'd gather some 50% of the CR forums' folks who were in the market made a call on buying a 7D2 solely from the spec sheet being confirmed by Canon's announcement, while the rest of us are waiting for detailed reviews. 

Remember, Canon doesn't need to court us, it needs to court new users --> enter broader appeal tech sites like Gizmodo and company to push their message further.
Not everyone who sees pre-production equipment is a legendary safari photog or Olympic sports shooter.  There's great value in seeing the market for what it is -- lots of different shooters with different needs -- and sampling your wares with them prior to launch.  Now I doubt a lower-on-the-totem-pole sort of reviewer/blogger could offer major feedback that would change the design, but I imagine that they would be excellent guinea pigs for sizing up marketing messaging, prioritizing the most impactful / least well understood features, etc.

- A

Reviews / Re: Gizmodo reviews the Canon 7D Mark II
« on: October 21, 2014, 11:26:39 AM »
Trying to get this straight: according to the review the original 7D was a great all-purpose camera.

The 7DII comes out and it does everything the original 7D did, plus it has more features, better low-light performance, better autofocus, etc., etc. all for the same price. But according to this review it's not an all-purpose camera?

What exactly do they think you could do with the 7D that you can't do better with the 7DII?

It's not that -- it's what else is available in comparison these days.

In 2009 (?) when the 7D came out, enthusiast mirrorless digital was in its infancy and was really only suited for basic walkaround shooting.  So, relatively speaking, the 7D stood out above all other [APS-C] options as the clear best in class on many, many fronts.

Now, in 2014, what the 7D2 does better than everyone in the APS-C market is...  well... less.  Burst and AF are best in class and the rest (IQ, low light, etc.) needs to be proven out by the pro reviewers.  But now, instead of just the single best in class Nikon APS-C as an alternative, now Canon has a slew of mirrorless competitors.  The 7D2 will only resoundingly beat them in action photography and build quality -- non-action IQ, video quality, etc. are not clear wins for Canon anymore.

We all know the 7D2 is not a direct competitor to the Fuji X Pro 1 (soon to be X Pro 2), Sony a6000, or Panasonic GH4 as they serve different needs, but to the gadget community, this distinction is lost.  They often just see high-level specs and form factor and size it up as they see it.  Sadly, Gizmodo and Engadget probably have 1,000 times the page views of CR, and for better or worse, control more of the general mindshare on this topic.

- A

Reviews / Re: Gizmodo reviews the Canon 7D Mark II
« on: October 21, 2014, 11:00:00 AM »

Believe it or not, reviews by these Gizmodo, Engadget, etc. types are helpful -- though fluffy and anti-technical -- in that they speak to the bigger picture of the camera in a much larger ecosystem.   The Best Buy shopper comment is spot on.

If you have a cabinet full of lenses, you realistically only have one or two camera bodies to consider, so the original 7D2 announcement either sent you immediately reaching for your credit card or immediately back to the forums to pine for Canon's next camera down the road.

But if you aren't heavily invested in a specific mount, and if you are in the market to do so, and if you are a gadget guy/gal and you want to stay on 'top' of the latest tech, the buzz around mirrorless is deafening in comparison to 'yet another SLR with slightly better specs'.  These folks would rather own a Tesla than a similarly priced Mercedes or Cadillac.  The tech these folks buy is an extension of their worldview, and (provided the quality is comparable), they'd rather buy tech that places them on the bleeding edge than with the herd. 

So as non-technical and populist as this review is, he makes a fair point.  The value proposition of SLRs continues to wane as mirrorless gets smaller form factor, gets more 'pro' options/components, better EVFs, etc.  Further, comments like 'the only reason to get this is high burst rate with AF tracking' -- given that he called the stills only marginally better than the 70D -- is damning.

I still am an SLR person.  It's OVF or bust for me.  And yes, I eagerly await Bryan Carnathan and other respected reviewers to kick the tires like the professionals that they are with a killer review in our terms, in our language, etc. 

- A

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 72