June 22, 2018, 03:50:27 AM

Author Topic: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?  (Read 340342 times)

dtaylor

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 841
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #465 on: August 25, 2014, 12:21:30 AM »
But of course were you to push the D800 another 2-3 stops it would, of course, be impossible to apply the same sort of NR techniques.

There are not another 2-3 stops of detail in either RAW file. That's the point. Both the Canon and the Nikon faded to black (so to speak) at about the same point. The D800 just did so with less noise and therefore finer resolution, though the resolution difference was very small. The noise difference is large, right up until the point where you move an ACR slider. After that you get shadow detail that most people cannot tell apart in 36" prints.

CANON IS FALLING BEHIND I JUST CAN'T PHOTOGRAPH LANDSCAPES ANY MORE!!!  ;D  ;D  ;D

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #465 on: August 25, 2014, 12:21:30 AM »

dtaylor

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 841
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #466 on: August 25, 2014, 12:22:37 AM »
Well from someone who actually knows QED the physics theory, I'm with jrista on this one.

Your theory does not apply to this situation in the way you think it does. Which you might understand if you would OBSERVE.

dtaylor

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 841
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #467 on: August 25, 2014, 12:33:17 AM »
The sad thing here is, despite my asking you for an objective definition of photographic Dr, not one single thing you have said in this entire thread has been anything but subjective. Do you not see the problem with that? (Honest question.)

The objective definition has been given, repeated, and backed up with multiple references including the textbook that is, or at least was at one time, used for teaching photography at MIT. I have more then supported my case, and my position is consistent with observational evidence that you yourself have provided.

Until you've tested the sensors in question against a step wedge I think this is done.

mycanonphotos

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • Jason Witten Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #468 on: August 25, 2014, 12:33:29 AM »
Close enough for me...Where the H#11 is the 100-400 at in all this
5D4,5D3,7D2 and some Lenses..

dtaylor

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 841
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #469 on: August 25, 2014, 12:35:08 AM »
Close enough for me...Where the H#11 is the 100-400 at in all this

Now THOSE are fighting words! Canon doesn't upgrade that lens I am gone...GONE!  ;D

dtaylor

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 841
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #470 on: August 25, 2014, 12:39:14 AM »
Go take a long, hard look at jrista's processing of the infamous 5D3 vs. D800 online test.

Ker-ching! The correct answer. And it's possible to do a much better job than he did of the Canon files.

Quote
DxO claims that there is a 2.5 stop DR difference between these two cameras. If that were the case then that door and those tiles in the far back should be BLACK. No detail or image at all in those regions, just blocked up shadow.

Precisely. DR is about where the shadows block up into no detail - not about how much noise there is in the shadows.

Just wanted to say thanks for your posts.

I am simply confused as to how jrista can ignore his own evidence  :-\

rrcphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2320
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #471 on: August 25, 2014, 12:52:05 AM »
The key point is: this camera was promised to be revolutionary, the biggest evolution since the start of DSLR.

wait.. where was this promise by canon? I missed this.

We (the fanatical users) promised it in their name.

The term revolutionary comes from rumors here at CR, but I remember about one year ago, an interview posted here at CR (news, not forum), where the Canon manager (camera division) stated that 7D successor would be something special, a milestone, not just an iteration, don't remember the words exactly.

Yes, they would be correct. For us, it’s about looking at what the camera has the potential to be and then adding that to what it can currently do. I do think the current model is still very attractive to buyers. And while we are, of course, developing its successor, it’ll be one that incorporates a certain number of innovative technologies. We will not be putting out a product with merely better specs, but one that has evolved into new territory. But then again, we’re not talking about something a long time from now either.

65 point all cross AF would certainly be innovative. never done before.

if the do the auto MFA stuff .. that's certainly not done before .. will the 7D evolve? we don't know.. we don't even know the specs yet, nor even what is in it - well the two canon engineers obviously on this thread do o.O


canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #471 on: August 25, 2014, 12:52:05 AM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #472 on: August 25, 2014, 01:37:22 AM »
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:

What on Earth makes you think that's not an exposure blend / HDR? (It doesn't appear to be GND.) I would also guess the "sunburst" is artificial or enhanced, though I could be wrong on that.

Quote
I've NEVER been able to actually do what this photographer did with a D800.

That's because you can't do it in a single frame unless the sun is heavily masked by something (fog; GND), which doesn't appear to be the case here. Not unless you have a DSLR with a 20+ stop NASA sensor.

Ahh. So, your happy to claim Canon cameras have the same DR as cameras with Exmor sensors, however when presented with evidence to the contrary, you switch to incredulity? Here are a few more examples of people shooting directly into the sun with a D800, and still having bright, noiseless foreground detail:

http://500px.com/photo/77205501/at%C3%A9-ao-fim-by-alvaro-roxo
http://500px.com/photo/79771739/red-sunset-by-giulio-annibali
http://500px.com/photo/37222976/rise-and-shine-by-justin-sheely
http://500px.com/photo/66068697/cave-arch-by-dustin-lefevre
http://500px.com/photo/48537232/hot-bath-by-max-rive
http://500px.com/photo/29165673/bright-%7C-arches-by-ali-erturk
http://500px.com/photo/74914783/field-of-gold-dreams-by-ian-helling-pga
http://500px.com/photo/52463648/68-degrees-north-by-stian-klo
http://500px.com/photo/79520935/sunset-in-bergen-by-attilio-ruffo
http://500px.com/photo/11036915/sweet-reality-%7C-cohasset-ma-by-lorenzo-montezemolo
http://500px.com/photo/35611930/the-rock-by-roger-raad
http://500px.com/photo/39665312/the-confluence-by-sapna-reddy
http://500px.com/photo/52853482/untitled-by-siewlam-wong

Oh, and um, one of the hallmarks of HDR images is they lack any kind of EXIF metadata when uploaded to photo sites like 500px. Any time you DO have EXIF, it pretty much guarantees that the image is a single shot. Another indication is a complete lack of any kind of funky layering or movement in clouds...even when doing quick successive shots with HDR, there is always cloud movement. Another BIG indicator of a single shot vs. HDR is the complete lack of water motion or funky water layering when exposure time is less than 1s (at and above 1s, your going to get a slight amount of water motion, as expected).

So, this time around, I've linked a bunch of D800 single-frame shots that include clouds AND water...none of which exhibit any of the artifacts of HDR processing.

Still think Canon sensors have the same kind of dynamic range as Exmor?  :P

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #473 on: August 25, 2014, 02:04:43 AM »
What, exactly, is the calculation you use to determine Photographic DR? Or is the calculation simply: "Shoot a step wedge and judge visually whether you have X stops or Y stops of DR?"

That's generally good enough, yes, though you're welcome to evaluate the shot with instruments.

There is not a magic formula which allows you to translate engineering SNR for a sensel into photographic dynamic range for an entire digital camera. That seems to be what you are looking for and it does not exist. There are multiple reasons for this, not the least of which is that photographic DR is evaluated for a 2 dimensional light sensitive material with many imaging elements (sensels or grains), and is not based on a single element. If you applied an "engineering" definition of DR, or SNR, to photographic film you would conclude it has 1 stop because at the level of a single grain you would find either silver or clear base and nothing in between. (Ironic that digital cameras are analog at the sensel and film is "digital" at the grain.)

There are other reasons, but the point is looking at sensel SNR...even though it's related...gives a false impression. But just because there is no simple formula to translate sensel SNR into DR does not mean that DR is arbitrary or subjective.

Quote
In every single one of those pages you linked, including the book "The Negative" by Ansel (which I own, BTW), no one actually DEFINES what "Photographic DR" is.

Luminance range between black and white. (For the nth time.)

As for Ken Rockwell: "In photography, dynamic range is the difference between the lightest light and darkest dark which can be seen in a photo." Bingo.

Quote
I do not believe there is a single objective definition of Photographic DR.

Saying this after the references I've provided is...embarrassing. You're arguing to argue, not discussing to learn.

Quote
It's just an arbitrary term, and it seems to be redefined at will.

Every source I linked has the same definition even if they call it by another name (i.e. luminance range). I'm not aware of any other definition in photography.

Quote
I am calling into question the validity of using the old film-based Zone system to describe dynamic range in digital image sensors. Film had no readout system! In film, dynamic range was limited only by the amount of grain, which means it effectively behaved like an "ideal sensor"...the only source of noise was photon shot noise, inherent in the image resolved by the lens itself.

Grain irregularity was itself noise.

I cut a lot from your post where you're theorizing. Observe, then theorize.

The definition is incomplete and inconsistent. Dynamic range is the "range from the lowest level to the brightest level". That is an arbitrary definition. Technically speaking, the lowest level in every sensor is black, or ZERO. By EVERY definition of dynamic range, the range from zero to any number is INFINITY. So you are basically arguing that Canon sensors have infinite dynamic range...which is obviously false.

You have to define what the lowest level is. So far, you, and everyone else who offers some description of "Photographic DR", has not defined how you determine the lowest level, from which  you can then define a range from that to the white point.

The lowest level is the noise floor, which in a digital sensor, is defined by the RMS of read noise. Sure, you can use NR algorithms to reduce the noise of images from Canon cameras. You can also use NR algorithms to reduce the noise in images from any other camera. You don't NEED to use NR to reduce the noise from cameras with Exmor sensors at ISO 100 (and 200)...and THAT is the point I'm trying to make. You can spend hours carefully reducing the noise present in a Canon image, however no matte how perfect your NR, it's still never going to be as good as a D800/D810/D600 image. At the same time, you could spend a few minutes reducing the noise present in a D800 image, and increase the gap again.

It doesn't really matter how you slice it. Less read noise means more dynamic range, but more usefully, it means more editing latitude. A lot more editing latitude. It really doesn't necessarily mean there is any difference whatsoever in noise levels or quality in the midtones through highlights. That's purely photon shot noise, unaffected by read noise, so there won't be any difference. The key here is the fact that less read noise means cleaner, more recoverable shadows. And it means you can shoot directly into the sun, not completely blow the sun out, and STILL recover the foreground detail without any issues with noise. Show me any Canon camera that can do that in a single shot. Even with NR, show me something that can lift the foreground shadows of a photo shot directly into the sun by five or six stops.

I actually have some examples of my own, since I was just out shooting sunflowers, with the sun behind them as it set. Soon as I get them imported, I'll share some examples...putting my 5D III in the best light possible, and also trying to do the same thing as a D800 can do...expose for the sun, and lift the shadows to recover all the detail in the foreground. I'll even run it all through DeNoise 5, and it still won't be as good.


Sporgon

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3589
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #474 on: August 25, 2014, 02:48:49 AM »
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:

What on Earth makes you think that's not an exposure blend / HDR? (It doesn't appear to be GND.) I would also guess the "sunburst" is artificial or enhanced, though I could be wrong on that.

Quote
I've NEVER been able to actually do what this photographer did with a D800.

That's because you can't do it in a single frame unless the sun is heavily masked by something (fog; GND), which doesn't appear to be the case here. Not unless you have a DSLR with a 20+ stop NASA sensor.

Ahh. So, your happy to claim Canon cameras have the same DR as cameras with Exmor sensors, however when presented with evidence to the contrary, you switch to incredulity? Here are a few more examples of people shooting directly into the sun with a D800, and still having bright, noiseless foreground detail:

http://500px.com/photo/77205501/at%C3%A9-ao-fim-by-alvaro-roxo
http://500px.com/photo/79771739/red-sunset-by-giulio-annibali
http://500px.com/photo/37222976/rise-and-shine-by-justin-sheely
http://500px.com/photo/66068697/cave-arch-by-dustin-lefevre
http://500px.com/photo/48537232/hot-bath-by-max-rive
http://500px.com/photo/29165673/bright-%7C-arches-by-ali-erturk
http://500px.com/photo/74914783/field-of-gold-dreams-by-ian-helling-pga
http://500px.com/photo/52463648/68-degrees-north-by-stian-klo
http://500px.com/photo/79520935/sunset-in-bergen-by-attilio-ruffo
http://500px.com/photo/11036915/sweet-reality-%7C-cohasset-ma-by-lorenzo-montezemolo
http://500px.com/photo/35611930/the-rock-by-roger-raad
http://500px.com/photo/39665312/the-confluence-by-sapna-reddy
http://500px.com/photo/52853482/untitled-by-siewlam-wong

Oh, and um, one of the hallmarks of HDR images is they lack any kind of EXIF metadata when uploaded to photo sites like 500px. Any time you DO have EXIF, it pretty much guarantees that the image is a single shot. Another indication is a complete lack of any kind of funky layering or movement in clouds...even when doing quick successive shots with HDR, there is always cloud movement. Another BIG indicator of a single shot vs. HDR is the complete lack of water motion or funky water layering when exposure time is less than 1s (at and above 1s, your going to get a slight amount of water motion, as expected).

So, this time around, I've linked a bunch of D800 single-frame shots that include clouds AND water...none of which exhibit any of the artifacts of HDR processing.

Still think Canon sensors have the same kind of dynamic range as Exmor?  :P

You're now showing your inexperience in post processing Jon. You're assuming that these guys would be using HDR software if they were indeed HDR. In fact your whole argument for them being single exposure shots is based on the inclusion of EXIF, instead of using your eyes.

Keep posting images like these as proof of the D800s superior DR. You gave me a good laugh this morning.  ;D

robbinzo

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #475 on: August 25, 2014, 02:59:33 AM »
Recently we had some family portraits done. They were stunning.
Of course I was interested in the Pro's gear. He used a 5D mark I with 24-105L lens.

So the point is that yes it's nice to have new gear with all these whistles and bells and nit pick about what we think Canon should or shouldn't do but at the end of the day even someone making a living in this game can use fairly old gear and get good results.

I'm not saying that the 5D mark I is right for sports etc but do we really need the latest and greatest gear?

It made me realise the importance of technique over gear.
70D, 10-22mm EFS, 17-40mm L, 15-85mm EFS, 100L macro, 50mm f/1.4

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #476 on: August 25, 2014, 03:05:32 AM »
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:

What on Earth makes you think that's not an exposure blend / HDR? (It doesn't appear to be GND.) I would also guess the "sunburst" is artificial or enhanced, though I could be wrong on that.

Quote
I've NEVER been able to actually do what this photographer did with a D800.

That's because you can't do it in a single frame unless the sun is heavily masked by something (fog; GND), which doesn't appear to be the case here. Not unless you have a DSLR with a 20+ stop NASA sensor.

Ahh. So, your happy to claim Canon cameras have the same DR as cameras with Exmor sensors, however when presented with evidence to the contrary, you switch to incredulity? Here are a few more examples of people shooting directly into the sun with a D800, and still having bright, noiseless foreground detail:

http://500px.com/photo/77205501/at%C3%A9-ao-fim-by-alvaro-roxo
http://500px.com/photo/79771739/red-sunset-by-giulio-annibali
http://500px.com/photo/37222976/rise-and-shine-by-justin-sheely
http://500px.com/photo/66068697/cave-arch-by-dustin-lefevre
http://500px.com/photo/48537232/hot-bath-by-max-rive
http://500px.com/photo/29165673/bright-%7C-arches-by-ali-erturk
http://500px.com/photo/74914783/field-of-gold-dreams-by-ian-helling-pga
http://500px.com/photo/52463648/68-degrees-north-by-stian-klo
http://500px.com/photo/79520935/sunset-in-bergen-by-attilio-ruffo
http://500px.com/photo/11036915/sweet-reality-%7C-cohasset-ma-by-lorenzo-montezemolo
http://500px.com/photo/35611930/the-rock-by-roger-raad
http://500px.com/photo/39665312/the-confluence-by-sapna-reddy
http://500px.com/photo/52853482/untitled-by-siewlam-wong

Oh, and um, one of the hallmarks of HDR images is they lack any kind of EXIF metadata when uploaded to photo sites like 500px. Any time you DO have EXIF, it pretty much guarantees that the image is a single shot. Another indication is a complete lack of any kind of funky layering or movement in clouds...even when doing quick successive shots with HDR, there is always cloud movement. Another BIG indicator of a single shot vs. HDR is the complete lack of water motion or funky water layering when exposure time is less than 1s (at and above 1s, your going to get a slight amount of water motion, as expected).

So, this time around, I've linked a bunch of D800 single-frame shots that include clouds AND water...none of which exhibit any of the artifacts of HDR processing.

Still think Canon sensors have the same kind of dynamic range as Exmor?  :P

You're now showing your inexperience in post processing Jon. You're assuming that these guys would be using HDR software if they were indeed HDR. In fact your whole argument for them being single exposure shots is based on the inclusion of EXIF, instead of using your eyes.

Keep posting images like these as proof of the D800s superior DR. You gave me a good laugh this morning.  ;D

I'm glad you had a good laugh, however, my "whole" argument was actually based on more than just EXIF data. My "whole" argument included the fact that none of these images show the kind of cloud or water artifacts that occur with HDR as well. I mean, YOU GUYS YOURSELVES, specifically Neuro, have made that very argument...that HDR is useless when water is present, because you get ghosting. Did you even look at any of the images I linked? If so, then who is showing their ignorance about post-processing now?

You guys can deny it as much as you want, but it doesn't change the facts. It is possible to capture the sun, without it being totally blown, and still recover the foreground with very low noise (and not a hint of banding or other unsightly noise characteristics), in a single shot with a D800. I did not believe it was possible a couple years ago (when the only real example of it was Mikael posting incredibly crappy photos of god only knows what trying to prove it here on CR), but there are now FAR too many examples of this very thing being done with the D800 in countless photos posted online. Not just examples, but artistic photographs.

This has nothing to do with my ability to post process a photo, or recognize how one was processed. It has everything to do with denial. :P There is a MASSIVE difference in editing latitude between a D800 and a 5D III, or any other Canon camera. MASSIVE. It's two stops. That means FOUR TIMES as much recoverable shadow data is recorded in a D800 RAW file. If you guys really can't see the difference, can't recognize the facts when they are sitting right in front of your face...well, it's no wonder no one here is interested in demanding that Canon do something about their sensor technology. No one even understands WHY they would ask for such a think in the first place, because they are ignorant of the reality of the difference between a Canon sensor and an Exmor.

This has NOTHING to do with DXO here, BTW. Just to be very clear. This has everything to do with WHAT PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE ACHIEVING IN REAL LIFEa with the D800. I posted actual real world, artistic photographic examples, not some lab test of a step wedge or a bunch of numbers on paper (things you guys are often ragging on me about) and you guys are STILL denying it. Well...I guess what they say is true. Denial is the most predictable of human behaviors...

Sporgon

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3589
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #477 on: August 25, 2014, 03:10:33 AM »
@jrista; when you e mail Canon demanding that they improve their sensor's IQ be sure to include those 500px images as an example of what the D800 and do  ;)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #477 on: August 25, 2014, 03:10:33 AM »

canonic

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #478 on: August 25, 2014, 03:13:57 AM »
If this camera has same (and no more) DR as 70D or 7D i'll pass this one ... again. I am sick of DR limitation on Canon cameras!

canonic

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #479 on: August 25, 2014, 03:18:15 AM »
@jrista; when you e mail Canon demanding that they improve their sensor's IQ be sure to include those 500px images as an example of what the D800 and do  ;)

Canon knows for sure about its DR limitations, they dont need any proof. If anyway, then, Sonys A7R sales are the proof.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #479 on: August 25, 2014, 03:18:15 AM »