January 19, 2018, 12:54:37 PM

Author Topic: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?  (Read 287025 times)

tayassu

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 361
    • 500px
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #375 on: August 24, 2014, 12:40:08 PM »
If these are the real specs, the 7DII/whatever :P is going to be a great camera on paper! If the new processors do some magic with the (hopefully new) 20MP sensor, this is a perfect all around camera with focus in sports/wildlife!  :D 10fps, more (cross-type) points than the 1DX, looks promising for video also!! Great! :D Compared to any other APS-C camera it would kickass, think about it! The Nikon D7100 or Pentax K-3 wouldn't even come close! I'm looking forward to the announcement and will save money even more intense now! :)
 
Cameras: Canon 5DIII, Canon 7D, Panasonic LX100
Lenses: Canon 16-35/4 L, Tamron 24-70/2.8, Canon 70-300/4-5.6 L, Tamron 2.8/90mm

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #375 on: August 24, 2014, 12:40:08 PM »

Joe M

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 193
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #376 on: August 24, 2014, 01:18:22 PM »
I realize a lot of people like to know what cameras may have what features so that they can make informed decisions on what to buy, today.  However, with this camera supposedly coming out in what you can almost count down in mere days now, what does it really matter to know what the specs are now as opposed to waiting days?  The only other practical reason I can think of is to know whether or not the 7D will do the job and if the newer one will be better, it's time to sell before the price drops and it's not worth selling.  It may be too late for that though.  BTW, I do get it that this is CR but really, we are now talking days to reality and not rumour and I think at this point Canon has done a great job of keeping their specs secret and I doubt the entire true list of specs will come out before the camera. 

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21996
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #377 on: August 24, 2014, 01:24:42 PM »
However, it's dangerous (as IBM, Intel and Microsoft discovered several times, and as Apple may soon discover) to assume that what worked in business for so long will continue indefinitely. 

Which is why I stated:

If differences in low ISO DR are going to affect sales (that's a big IF), Canon will address it...most likely before it becomes an issue. 


One more thing: you should know by now that jrista is not a DRone. 

I agree.  But to borrow unfocused's phrase anyone who states, "...if Canon doesn't improve low ISO DR they are doomed," is sure starting to sound like one.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Marauder

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #378 on: August 24, 2014, 01:48:29 PM »
A small fraction of the market shoots RAW, a tiny fraction makes large prints, and an infinitesimally miniscule fraction even knows what a Stouffer step wedge is, let alone has one.
Agreed! I see so many cameras in "green box" mode.... and there are probably more T3's out there than all other Canon DSLRs combined..... We at CR are definitely in the minority..

As to the Stouffer wedge... those of us who date back to B+W darkrooms have probably used Stouffer wedges, but just didn't know what it was called. (I didn't)

Small wonder this 'sensor IQ gap' has no impact on sales.  The bottom line is that for the needs of the vast majority of dSLR buyers, the IQ delivered by Canon's current sensors is more than sufficient, and that's not likely to change any time soon. 

I am at the point where I am going to upgrade my camera. I would like a better sensor.... but realistically, the camera I get will be decided upon mostly by the capability of the AF system. I shoot Canon because of the glass. I am not trapped by it, I am attracted by it. To me the camera is secondary.... The one that I bought (60D) was good enough for my needs at the time, and when I bought it I was confident that by the time I outgrew it that there would be far better choices. So here we are 4 years later and EVERY SINGLE DSLR that Canon sells (except the 60DA which is a special case) has better IQ. I can pick up a 70D today that will certainly meet my needs, but I am waiting on the 7D2 in hopes of a far better AF system... any other improvements are a bonus (to me).

So yes, at least for me, in the worst case scenario that the 7D2 has no better sensor than a 70D, I will get one or the other and despite the old sensor tech that I wish they would change, they will not have lost this customer.

I concur.  I've seen enough comparisons between Nikon and Canon that I don't think the DR differences are nearly as great as some would have you believe.  I would like to see the 7D2 ship with a different sensor than the 70D--slightly better resolution and IQ, but it's not a primary factor for me.  What I'm most interested in is a rocking AF system with amazing speed and accuracy, a fast burst (10 is more than adequate--the 12fps would have been a better bet from 'staying in front of the competition" standpoint, but not a huge factor) and a deep buffer to utilize it and the same kind of ergonomics that have become so well regarded in cameras such as the 7D and 5D3.  I also like the statement "I shoot Canon because of the glass. I am not trapped by it, I am attracted by it."  Well said! 

I think this camera is exactly what the wildlife/action/sports crop-frame camera user wants and expected.  Whether this camera is exciting or disappointing for you will probably depend heavily on whether you want it for its intended purpose.  For wildlife shooters, I think it's going to be made to measure for us.  For landscape/low light and video users, it will be a 'good' camera, but not what you're looking for--a FF 5D3 (or upcoming 5D4) will be a better choice.  And a 1DX or it's successor is still ideal for a wildlife, sports and action shooter who wants to shoot in lower light--and if they have deep pockets!!!!  ;)
Canon 7D, Canon T3i, Canon 100-400L, Canon 200 f2.8L & Various other lenses

whothafunk

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #379 on: August 24, 2014, 01:53:13 PM »
The Nikon D7100 or Pentax K-3 wouldn't even come close!
Nikon D7100 isnt meant to compete against 7DII. It is meant to be compared against 70D. According to the rumours, Nikon has a 7DII competitor called D9300.
1Dx -- 300L f2.8 IS USM -- 70-200L f2.8 IS USM II -- 8-15L f4 Fisheye USM -- 24-70L f2.8 USM -- Tamron 15-30 f2.8 VC -- 1.4x III Extender

PureClassA

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1416
  • Canon since age 5. The A1
    • Shields Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #380 on: August 24, 2014, 02:22:22 PM »
"I shoot Canon for the glass"

AMEN.

Better IQ with a sensor upgrade from the 70D is what I feel is a reasonable expectation for Canon's flagship APS-C format rig. I'm willing to bet that the most popular lens used in tandem (or at least of the top most popular, especially in the zoom category) is the 70-200IS Mk II or some earlier variant, which is one of Canon's crown jewels in the entire universe of pro glass. I know I use the hell outta mine.

Stepping up higher ISO performance was probably at the top of their to-do list when redesigning this camera, but anyone salivating over "near 5DIII" ISO performance is, I'm sorry, deluding themselves. It's still a limitation of physics of Crop vs. Full Frame. We have to be reasonable. That said, certainly there is still room to grow on a crop format and I trust Canon will answer this call after 5 years of stepped up tech advancements and whatnot.

All this debate is academically stimulating but once the camera hits with known variables, a whole new debate begins that renders this little more than playtime.

My sharpest and most used glass is my Sigma 35mm and 50mm ART 1.4s.  I'd love to see them get notably more resolve on a new updated crop body, but they are no slouch now.  Earlier someone opined about "waxy" 7D files. I don't know what that means. My 7D kills it for a crop, even when I was using an old 90mm Tamron Macro 172E (something like 3 generations ago of that lens).

Of course, when I'm shooting portraiture and artwork, i'm firing a 6D, which I also adore, but I can't reasonably compare that to crop.

I'm a Canon lover, but I'm also a realist. Canon needs to knock this out the park regardless of current market share. I don't want to watch Rome burn while Japan fiddles.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 02:25:01 PM by PureClassA »
Financial Planner by day, Photography by heart.

5D Mk III, 5DSR, 1DX Mk II

crashpc

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #381 on: August 24, 2014, 02:27:03 PM »
It seems to compare new APS-C with 5D II sensor. They can make it there....

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #381 on: August 24, 2014, 02:27:03 PM »

David Hull

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 234
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #382 on: August 24, 2014, 02:28:59 PM »
neuroanatomist: I agree with what you wrote, but of course it will have some effect on Canon. For example I´m Canon guy. For last year I bought three Canon cams. But if they don´t deliver here, I´ll be forced to look elsewhere, that way I´ll stop buying their products. So it has effect. I hope they solve it, because I´d be very happy to buy another Canon product.

I didn't think I needed to spell it out explicitly, but the effect I am referring to is an effect on market share, not at an individual level.  You may switch to another brand for more DR, that's not going to affect market share.  Perhaps as you switch away from Canon, three other people switch to Canon for better AF for video and/or stills.
Not only that, but when he sells his stuff -- Canon gets another customer (or keeps one).  This same argument was used when Sony came out with IBIS (for example) over on DPR there were huge numbers of posts bemoaning the imminent demise of Canon (and Nikon) if they didn't immediately adopt this new "game changing" technology, yet so far we haven't seen it happen (and indeed, Sony have moved from it in a number of their offerings).

To put your summary in a slightly different way:  Canon would not be where they are if they weren't good at figuring out what their market wants.

David Hull

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 234
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #383 on: August 24, 2014, 02:42:19 PM »
@jrista – You state that Canon's sensors haven't improved since before the 7D, and that all of their competitors' sensors have substantially improved, that Canon's customers have been demanding improved sensor IQ, and that Canon 'must respond'.

Quote
A small fraction of the market shoots RAW, a tiny fraction makes large prints, and an infinitesimally miniscule fraction even knows what a Stouffer step wedge is, let alone has one.

Quote
Small wonder this 'sensor IQ gap' has no impact on sales.  The bottom line is that for the needs of the vast majority of dSLR buyers, the IQ delivered by Canon's current sensors is more than sufficient, and that's not likely to change any time soon.

But a fair percentage of buyers pay attention to online reviews.  Neuro, I'm in nearly 100% agreement with you on your contention that sales tell the story.  However, it's dangerous (as IBM, Intel and Microsoft discovered several times, and as Apple may soon discover) to assume that what worked in business for so long will continue indefinitely.  It's a reasonable assumption that if the I.Q. gap gets wide enough, the popular press, review sites, and entities like Cons. Rep. will start to disregard Canon's whizzbang features and marketing prowess, and view Canon's lineup as unworthy of serious consideration.  You're correct that this will not likely happen soon (e.g. in the next 2-3 years), but 5 years is not out of the question.

IBM, Intel and Microsoft may have had episodes where they badly misunderstood the market, but they were able to recover due to their deep pockets and a willingness to part with previous strategies.  I believe Canon can do the same.  Based on Canon's (corporate) track record, I'll bet they have the ability to deliver IQ equal to or exceeding what's on the market now, but they won't do so until market conditions force them.  Eventually, as jrista points out, the market will force them.

One more thing: you should know by now that jrista is not a DRone.  When he makes assertions he almost always has good reasons for them, and he's willing to talk things out and admit his errors.  You may disagree with him, but try asking politely for citations rather than descend into name-calling.
Here is the problem with this thinking though:  The concept of an "IQ Gap" is more hype than reality.  Look at the reviews on DPR for example, they don't show much of an "IQ Gap" in fact for all practical purposes, none at all in their example images.  This is why I call it hype, it is really "much ado about not much".  Even those who try to demonstrate the so called "problem" (and we have seen this time and time again) have to resort to some extreme shadow lift test case to demonstrate their point with the resulting image being unusable for anything much beyond PI surveillance perhaps.

Your "IQ Gap",  if it exists at all, exists over a very small subset of use cases (which no doubt are important to some, but clearly are NOT important to many). 

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #384 on: August 24, 2014, 03:08:08 PM »
One more thing: you should know by now that jrista is not a DRone.  When he makes assertions he almost always has good reasons for them, and he's willing to talk things out and admit his errors.  You may disagree with him, but try asking politely for citations rather than descend into name-calling.

Thanks for coming to my defense. I'll admit, maybe I'm being a bit too sensationalistic. We still need to see what the 7D II hits the streets with before we can really draw any concrete conclusions. I'm not particularly confident at this point, but maybe we will all still be WOWed...

That said, I'm not surprised by Neuro's name calling. @Neuro, to be quite frank, since your episodes of utterly childish schoolyard name calling and bullying with ZigZagZoe, a guy who certainly came on strong and took an immediate disliking to you (and whom I have zero respect for, as he is just as much a disgraceful schoolyard bully), I'm not surprised at all by your name calling. That seems to be what you resort to when you have no other solid argument to make. I've lost a lot of respect for you, thanks to those threads, and the fact that you are STILL resorting to name calling whenever someone tries to bring up DR.

I'll shut up about it after this. It's not doing any good, and I don't want to rial up the locals into another pointless battle. However, you should really check the attitude a bit. I can't be the only one who was rather horrified at your behavior with the whole ZigZag episode. I can't help but view you in a different light now...and it isn't a good light. Just...something to think about regarding how people perceive you. I understand now why CR forums are considered to be full of raging fanboys.... We all ARE raging fanboys!  :o Raging enough to have the closest thing to a schoolyard fight between bullies as you can get online! I'm kind of ashamed to have been a part of that at all...maybe that's where part of my change of heart, change of stance, on Canon gear comes from now...I dunno.

Anyway...I don't know if Canon will lose out because they don't change their sensors. However, I do believe there are some strong parallels to be draw between Canon and many other tech companies that have failed or lost their competitive edge and market dominance (or simply missed the opportunity to expand into new markets) because they sat on technology and/or did not innovate. Canon innovates...it just does not seem as though their innovations are making their way into products. I most certainly do not believe Canon is an "evil" company, purposely withholding trivial features to keep customers "coming back for more in each future model" like LTRLI. I think they have their product lines segregated according to their business goals. But that's different than bringing new technology to market...especially in PRO-grade camera lines. I know the vast majority of Canon DSLR users are "green box" photographers...but, were talking about the 7D II here. This isn't an entry-level DSLR...it's a professional grade DSLR...something that has been hotly anticipated by a group of Canon photographers that are certainly more savvy than "green box" shooters. A group that should overwhelmingly shoot RAW and appreciate a better sensor.

As someone who DOES like Canon gear, particularly their lenses, which I've invested many tens of thousands of dollars into...it's a concerning realization, that Canon may be in a similar position as Nokia, Kodak, Microsoft, and so many others when old markets shifted and new markets emerged. I don't want to be sitting on a $13,000 lens five years from now that is still only capable of being attached to a DSLR that has the same sensor IQ of today, which is largely the same sensor IQ of five years ago. I bought that lens with the expectation that it would survive through a half dozen camera generations, each one better than the last, until I'm in my late 40's or early 50's. I'm not confident that I'll be attaching that lens to a camera that performs wildly differently then than I do today. I'll just sit back and watch now. Hopefully Canon will do something about it soon...if not, well, I personally am opening up my options for low ISO IQ. I'm tired of waiting for Canon to do something about it...and while I still think Nikon is a schizophrenic company, I'd rather buy a D810 and have a REAL RAW image format than buy a Sony A7r and have to deal with a gimped out lossy-compressed "RAW" format. Time to stop waiting for Canon to do something...I gotta do what I gotta do for my photography. If that means Neuro labels me a DRone, well...so be it. Not surprising there.

SwampYankee

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #385 on: August 24, 2014, 03:15:40 PM »
I think the concern is not so much the 7DII, but that Canon does not seem to have any new sensor technology on the horizon.  Canon 1DX and 5DII, III owners are concerned that the high resolution sensor market has been conceded to Sony.  The concern goes beyond the camera body.  I have not bought a new lens in a year and I will not buy another lens for my 5DIII until I know that my investment in lenses will be worthwhile one in the long run.  I would have already bought one or two new lenses but I will just live with what I have until I am sure Canon wants to keep my business.  I hate to say it but I don't really care about their larger market share and servicing another market.  I care about me. 
5DIII | 70-200 IS F4L | 24-105L |50 1.8 I |1002.8L | Tokina 16-28 2.8 |600EX

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21996
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #386 on: August 24, 2014, 03:22:26 PM »
@jrista - I was attempting to convey the point that your statements sound like those usually made by members known for harping on DR.  I used words like 'echoing' and 'parroting' and 'sound like'.  I don't think 'Poor DR spells doom for Canon' is your mantra, despite a couple of statements to that effect.  "Friends don't let friends become DRiveling DRones!"

But hey, if you feel that means you need defending and merits throwing out descriptors like 'childish', 'bully' and 'disgraceful', that's your prerogative. 

Have a nice day.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

that1guyy

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 249
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #387 on: August 24, 2014, 03:34:29 PM »
I just think it's embarrassing how Canon's top of the line crop cameras are so far behind technologically to Sony's. Whether or not it will lead to the demise of Canon, I don't know.

http://nofilmschool.com/2014/08/dynamic-range-new-550-sony-a5100/

But the fact that a $500 sony has more DR than a potentially $2000+ Canon is embarrassing. Again, perhaps it won't make a dent in Canon's sales right now but if I was an executive at Canon, I wouldn't be satisfied with just good enough sales. I would want to be on the cutting edge of technology and not just sit on my ass. Seeing the competitors would have embarrassed me and motivated me to do better.


EDIT: Can the mods start deleting posts that are only about the stupid bickering done here by aged men? It's just sad.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 03:37:59 PM by that1guyy »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #387 on: August 24, 2014, 03:34:29 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #388 on: August 24, 2014, 03:44:19 PM »
Quote
(In my experience, "Photographic DR" is far more arbitrary, as everyone seems to define it or calculate it in a different way...

The definition and method of calculation is taught to every single person who earns a degree in photography in the country. A very large number of printers and scientists know it as well. It is not arbitrary.

And yet...it still hasn't been DEFINED. 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?"

I'm sorry, but a simple visual judgement is insufficient. Your ignoring read noise, which you cannot do. (Well, you can...it just isn't valid...not for electronic sensors.)

I'm debating your definition of DR. You cannot simply shut that down at will.

Yes I can. It is not "my" definition. It is the definition that has been in use since Ansel Adams and Fred Archer developed the Zone System (at least). The first zone above black does not even have any texture or detail, just a tone lighter then black. And it is not dependent on grain/noise.

Quote
Your definition is flat out wrong. Simple as that. :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range - Photographers use "dynamic range" for the luminance range of a scene being photographed, or the limits of luminance range that a given digital camera or film can capture, [32] or the opacity range of developed film images, or the reflectance range of images on photographic papers.

Luminance range. NOT detail that has "Sony Exmor" amount of noise or less.

Please also see:

Basic Photographic Materials and Processes, Third Edition - chapters 2 and 5.

http://photo.net/learn/making-photographs/film

http://www.amazon.com/Negative-Ansel-Adams-Photography-Book/dp/0821221868

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System#Exposure_zones

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/zone_system.shtml

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dynamic-range.htm

http://www.stouffer.net/TransPage.htm

http://cameras.about.com/od/technologies/a/What-Is-Dynamic-Range.htm

Shall I go on?

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. No one describes an objective formula by which it can be derived. I think Ken Rockwell, a poorly respected laughing stock nutjob in the photographic world (by anyone who isn't a total DSLR novice...for them, their trust of the guy is understandable), sums it up quite nicely:

"Real photographers don't care. We adjust our lighting so the subject's dynamic range fits within the range of the camera."

That isn't a definition of anything. That isn't an OBJECTIVE description of something that can be consistently applied to every camera. It's a massively SUBJECTIVE reaction, and the simple fact of the matter is: We're not always able to adjust the subjects dynamic range. As a wildlife photographer, I fully understand what he's saying...even though I don't control the sun, I still control my angle to my subject, so I can control it's lighting. That's why having a mere 7-8 stops of DR at ISO 12800 is not a huge issue for my bird and wildlife photography. It does often limit my ability to get the best subject pose and framing, but I can still control it. Or, I simply deal with the fact that I don't have enough DR, and suffer the consequences to get a better-posed, better-framed shot.

We all have to admit though...the kind of photography each one of us does most personally is not indicative of the market at large. Neuro has said that countless times. There ARE cases where we cannot control lighting or dynamic range at all.

I'll pick up a transmission wedge, and I'll shoot it and we can actually have some real examples to debate with. The key difference here is the definition of dynamic range. I do not believe there is a single objective definition of Photographic DR. It's just an arbitrary term, and it seems to be redefined at will. Hence what is often called Engineering DR. This is an objective description of dynamic range that takes into account all the traits of electronic systems. Even the Wiki page on DR that you linked states that:

Quote
Electronics engineers apply the term to:

the ratio of a specified maximum level of a parameter, such as power, current, voltage or frequency, to the minimum detectable value of that parameter.

The minimum detectable value of a parameter, such as voltage (which is what digital sensor pixels accumulate...they accumulate a voltage) is determined by the amount of noise. Once you cross the threshold of read noise, you cannot say with any certainty whether the pixel is representing a real value, or a noise value. That's the problem with noise. Therefor, just as with Audio:

Quote
Dynamic range in analog audio is the difference between low-level thermal noise in the electronic circuitry and high-level signal saturation resulting in increased distortion and, if pushed higher, clipping.

Analog audio is a one-dimensional signal. The analog signal in a digital sensor is a two-dimensional signal. It's still an electronic signal. Instead of a simple waveform that changes over time, a digital sensor is a spatial waveform. The exact same criteria apply for a digital image signal. There isn't any difference between sampling an analog audio frequency, and sampling a spatial waveform with a pixel. Both determine the amplitude of the signal at that location, and both are subject to noise levels in the sample. Dynamic range is the difference between low-level noise (that includes thermal or "dark current", but also read noise in a sensor) and the high level signal saturation.

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. Digital sensors are not only subject to photon shot noise...but they have the addition of read noise to content with. The zone system makes no allowance for read noise, nor does it provide any consistent means of accounting for read noise.

Read noise cannot be ignored in digital sensors. It IS the point at which we reach the "minimum detectable values". The more read noise a system has, the lower the dynamic range, even if the pixels of the sensor themselves are actually capable of more, when those pixels are read out, the least significant bits of those pixels will be obscured and potentially obliterated by noise from the electronics of the readout logic.

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #389 on: August 24, 2014, 03:58:15 PM »
@jrista - I was attempting to convey the point that your statements sound like those usually made by members known for harping on DR.  I used words like 'echoing' and 'parroting' and 'sound like'.  I don't think 'Poor DR spells doom for Canon' is your mantra, despite a couple of statements to that effect.  "Friends don't let friends become DRiveling DRones!"

But hey, if you feel that means you need defending and merits throwing out descriptors like 'childish', 'bully' and 'disgraceful', that's your prerogative. 

Have a nice day.

I'm not trying to insult you, however I do think you should know how you came off in your little fight with ZigZag. That was an embarrassing episode. You should have taken the high road, and just ignored the guy...but you did not. You stooped to his level, and became exactly what he started out being on his first day here. I loath the guy, he was flat out, strait up, a literal bully. He seemed quite proud of that fact. I tried to defend you on a couple occasions, despite you stooping to his level. He PMed me multiple times about you, and I laid into the guy about his behavior and his treatment of you.

It was honestly dismaying to see you behave the same way he did. He was banned for his behavior, for Christ sake! All I'm saying is...you have a side to you that is decidedly NOT nice. It's downright mean and, yes, it comes off as childish. Just, be aware of that, and try to keep it in check...because again, in all honesty, I don't read what you write the same way anymore. When someone disagrees with you, your ultimate intent APPEARS to be to crush them, utterly. ;P You seem to have a DRoneaphobia as well. It's like the mere mention of DR sets off something in you, and you....just....must....CRUUUSH.



What do you think if everyone here started emailing Canon, started hitting up their booths at conventions, and started loudly demanding better sensor IQ? I mean, I know it "doesn't matter" to their bottom line, to their shareholders...but, doesn't better sensor IQ (and I don't just mean low ISO DR...Magic Lantern has boosted HIGH ISO DR by a stop or more!) matter to everyone here? It's clear that we can have more. It's clear that it's possible to create a sensor with nearly 80% Q.E. at room temperature, which means that we could quite literally see a one-stop improvement in high ISO noise for an APS-C sensor. It's more than clear that we can have two additional stops of DR at low ISO without that, but with a Q.E. boost, we could even have THREE stops of additional DR at low ISO (assuming 15-bit or better sensors.) It's clear we can have more pixels without sacrificing IQ.

Does no one here want any of that? If the members of these forums got up, got vocal, and started demanding...do you really think that wouldn't have any impact? Do you think Canon would completely ignore us...or, might hey possible take notice at least? Do you think that other communities on the net would notice that we've presented Canon with a unified front demanding better sensor IQ across the board, low ISO, high ISO, more pixels, better pixels, everything. Do you not think that could start a movement that could really light a fire under Canon' proverbial ass and force them to do something?

And, conversely...if we all just sit back and perpetually defend Canon for not doing anything wrong (which is absolutely true...they haven't done anything wrong...but they could do BETTER)...what will Canon do? If they HEAR their customers say en-mass "We don't expect you to do any more, to do any better, to innovate faster, to employ better technology."...why would they change?

Dunno...just some thoughts. We may be entirely irrelevant, but the fact that we are considered Canon Fanboy Central here by many other photography forums on the net (though particularly DPR and Nikon Rumors)...it just makes me wonder if we might actually have some sway...
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 04:02:43 PM by jrista »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #389 on: August 24, 2014, 03:58:15 PM »