December 02, 2016, 03:10:51 PM

Author Topic: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?  (Read 213142 times)

Famateur

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 656
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #405 on: August 24, 2014, 06:18:28 PM »
@Famateur: Because of the fact that the sky was overcast, that dispersed a lot of the light, resulting a higher diffuse ambient level. The dynamic range of the scene was within the dynamic range of the sensor. A scene that was directly lit by the sun would actually have had higher dynamic range, and actually posed a greater problem for lifting the shadows.

Given the unprocessed version of your image, I would offer that you could have underexposed slightly more, and avoided the pinkish/purple toning that occurred when you recovered the highlights in the clouds. You might have had slightly more noise in the foreground, but I think that would ultimately be preferable to the color grading issues in the clouds.

Agreed on both points. :)

The first thing I noticed when I opened the file was that, despite the underexposure, I still managed to burn some of the sky. Hard to see on an LCD outside, but what can you do. With wife and kids anxious to move on, no time to fiddle with enabling highlight alert. I'll see if I can desaturate that patch of pinkish clouds with a local brush...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #405 on: August 24, 2014, 06:18:28 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #406 on: August 24, 2014, 06:24:56 PM »
@Famateur: Because of the fact that the sky was overcast, that dispersed a lot of the light, resulting a higher diffuse ambient level. The dynamic range of the scene was within the dynamic range of the sensor. A scene that was directly lit by the sun would actually have had higher dynamic range, and actually posed a greater problem for lifting the shadows.

Given the unprocessed version of your image, I would offer that you could have underexposed slightly more, and avoided the pinkish/purple toning that occurred when you recovered the highlights in the clouds. You might have had slightly more noise in the foreground, but I think that would ultimately be preferable to the color grading issues in the clouds.

Agreed on both points. :)

The first thing I noticed when I opened the file was that, despite the underexposure, I still managed to burn some of the sky. Hard to see on an LCD outside, but what can you do. With wife and kids anxious to move on, no time to fiddle with enabling highlight alert. I'll see if I can desaturate that patch of pinkish clouds with a local brush...

Aye, I understand. That is one of the areas where having more DR can be very useful. It has nothing to do with being a novice or not, knowing how to choose exposure or not. Sometimes the tools in our hands don't tell us everything. For example, JPEG thumbnails are usually used to generate the histogram shown on the camera, and to determine when to show "blinkies" that indicate blown highlights when previewing images. Use of JPEG results in highly inaccurate feedback. However, sometimes, when your on the run, with the family, wouldn't it be really nice to be able to dial in a darker exposure than you think you could probably get away with...and just not have to worry that doing so will affect your IQ?

Two additional stops of editing latitude would allow that. It's just one of the things it can allow for. I don't think it's an invalid reason because it helps you continue to create better photography when your in a rush. There can't really be any bad reasons for having better technology. At the same time, having an additional two stops of editing latitude means if that arch WAS directly and brightly lit by the sun...you could have still gotten a photo and been able to extract whatever amount of detail you wanted to from the shadows, without running into nasty color noise, banding, etc.



Based on the tone around here, I can only assume the following:

Just because you used a camera with a better sensor to get either shot, one with diffuse lighting vs. one with direct lighting, and were able to lift the shadows more, would likely get you labeled either as a total noob who doesn't know how to expose, or a poser who isn't a "real" photographer who takes on the challenge of creating a real work of art with limited equipment...

Seriously...  ::)

that1guyy

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #407 on: August 24, 2014, 06:52:54 PM »
I just think it's embarrassing how Canon's top of the line crop cameras are so far behind technologically to Sony's.

Can you please list the features that make a camera like the Sony A5100 so technologically superior to a top of the line Canon crop camera.  Feel free to discuss advantages in areas like native lens selection, AF speed, frame rate, focus tracking of moving subjects, integration with a radio-controlled off-camera flash system, etc. 

If you mean sensor and not camera, please say so.  As I've said repeatedly, people don't buy bare silicon sensors to take pictures, they buy cameras.

Let me compare the 70D to the A6000.

I know I specifically mentioned the A5100 when talking about the sensor, but I was speaking generally of Sony's crop cameras compared to Canon's in terms of overall camera capability so I'll use the a6000 as my example.

The a6000 is much cheaper at $800 (actually $648 now on Amazon).
The a6000 is full metal compared to 70D being plastic.
The a6000 shoots up to 11fps compared to the 7fps on the 70D
The a6000 has a 179 focus points compared to 19 on the 70D
The a6000 shoots 60p video at full hd (note: also with better quality)
The a6000 has 100% viewfinder coverage compared to 98% on the 70D

On top of that, it has a superior sensor with more dynamic range, color sensitivity, and tonal range.

Sure Canon sells more, but it's probably due to the fact that Canon has better brand awareness with consumers.

Edit: Let me also add, I'm not saying Canon's cameras are terrible. In fact, they're quite capable of getting good results. It's just that Canon no longer seems to care about having the best image quality (at least sub $6k) and being on the cutting edge in terms of features and sensor, and to me it's disappointing, regardless of sales figures, that other companies can offer overall better sensors AND better cameras, at a cheaper price.

If you want to measure "better" by sales figures, go ahead but I'm just talking about my subjective views of "better."
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 07:01:31 PM by that1guyy »

dgatwood

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 924
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #408 on: August 24, 2014, 07:05:00 PM »

These specs just keep getting more and more bizarre.  If correct, Canon is including GPS, which requires multiple really sensitive antennas near the outside of the body, but not GPS, which can be done with two cheap strip antennas taped to the back of the screen bezel.  They did the hard engineering, and skipped the easy stuff.  And that would mean that the 70D has one consumer-oriented feature, and the 7D has the other.  Really weird.

 :o : ???

If correct, my only questions would be what they're smoking and where I can get some....

Zv

  • 1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1677
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #409 on: August 24, 2014, 07:26:33 PM »
I just think it's embarrassing how Canon's top of the line crop cameras are so far behind technologically to Sony's.

Can you please list the features that make a camera like the Sony A5100 so technologically superior to a top of the line Canon crop camera.  Feel free to discuss advantages in areas like native lens selection, AF speed, frame rate, focus tracking of moving subjects, integration with a radio-controlled off-camera flash system, etc. 

If you mean sensor and not camera, please say so.  As I've said repeatedly, people don't buy bare silicon sensors to take pictures, they buy cameras.

Let me compare the 70D to the A6000.

I know I specifically mentioned the A5100 when talking about the sensor, but I was speaking generally of Sony's crop cameras compared to Canon's in terms of overall camera capability so I'll use the a6000 as my example.

The a6000 is much cheaper at $800 (actually $648 now on Amazon).
The a6000 is full metal compared to 70D being plastic.
The a6000 shoots up to 11fps compared to the 7fps on the 70D
The a6000 has a 179 focus points compared to 19 on the 70D
The a6000 shoots 60p video at full hd (note: also with better quality)
The a6000 has 100% viewfinder coverage compared to 98% on the 70D

On top of that, it has a superior sensor with more dynamic range, color sensitivity, and tonal range.

Sure Canon sells more, but it's probably due to the fact that Canon has better brand awareness with consumers.

Edit: Let me also add, I'm not saying Canon's cameras are terrible. In fact, they're quite capable of getting good results. It's just that Canon no longer seems to care about having the best image quality (at least sub $6k) and being on the cutting edge in terms of features and sensor, and to me it's disappointing, regardless of sales figures, that other companies can offer overall better sensors AND better cameras, at a cheaper price.

If you want to measure "better" by sales figures, go ahead but I'm just talking about my subjective views of "better."

The a6000 is a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera while the 70D is a DSLR. You're comparing between two different types of camera.

11fps is easier when there's no mirror to move out the way.

179 AF points but how many are phase detect? Heck even the EOS M has 31 AF points but you wouldn't say it's better than the 70D now would you?

And that viewfinder is electronic vs an optical one on the 70D.

Cheaper? Of course it's cheaper it's a whole different class of camera. My point and shoot is cheaper than my 5D2, does that make it better? (Yeah, only in one category!  :P )
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 07:34:15 PM by Zv »
Move along nothing to see here!

vscd

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 375
  • 5DC
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #410 on: August 24, 2014, 07:28:25 PM »
Quote
Edit: Let me also add, I'm not saying Canon's cameras are terrible. In fact, they're quite capable of getting good results. It's just that Canon no longer seems to care about having the best image quality (at least sub $6k) and being on the cutting edge in terms of features and sensor, and to me it's disappointing, regardless of sales figures, that other companies can offer overall better sensors AND better cameras, at a cheaper price.

Sony may have some advances in sensortechnology... but try to find a serious lens-package for an A7, for example.

Maybe Canon has different priorities or is trying to invent/test something in the background. We don't know. There is always someone better until a new technology hits the market. Always take the whole package into account, a sensor is just a part of it.

5DC, 85 1.2L II, 80-200 2.8L, 100 2.8L IS, 14 2.8, 35 1.4, 75-300 IS, 40STM, 24-85, Zeiss Lenses, and a real cam.. Fuji GX680

unfocused

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3301
    • Mark Gordon Communications
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #411 on: August 24, 2014, 07:30:01 PM »
The current sensors are not holding me back from anything I want to produce... To a certain extent photography as an art form is defined by its limitations.

Exactly. The joy and art of photography is in trying to make a machine conform to an individual's vision. To take the basic elements of a photograph and wrestle a compelling image from a mechanical box. 



That machine's job is to make ME the limitation, not it.

Totally agree. I don't want to be limited by technology.

Clearly you don't get it. A camera is nothing more than a mechanical box. It will always be limited. To be a photographer is to understand those limitations, which can never be separated from the medium. And, to use those limitations to produce works of distinct, personal vision.

In its highest form, those images will speak to people and convey a message than transcends the image itself.

Sure, technology marches on and it's nice to be able to take advantage of those advancements to make images that are technically improved. But, never equate technical perfection with quality.

Time marches on, but Robert Frank's grainy, unsharp, less than perfect images don't prevent him from remaining the most influential photographer of the second half of the 20th century. A photographer who accomplishment remains unmatched today.

Any photographer who can't produce a great image because of the limitations of his or her equipment was never much of a photographer in the first place.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #411 on: August 24, 2014, 07:30:01 PM »

Stu_bert

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #412 on: August 24, 2014, 07:33:57 PM »
@Famateur: Because of the fact that the sky was overcast, that dispersed a lot of the light, resulting a higher diffuse ambient level. The dynamic range of the scene was within the dynamic range of the sensor. A scene that was directly lit by the sun would actually have had higher dynamic range, and actually posed a greater problem for lifting the shadows.

Given the unprocessed version of your image, I would offer that you could have underexposed slightly more, and avoided the pinkish/purple toning that occurred when you recovered the highlights in the clouds. You might have had slightly more noise in the foreground, but I think that would ultimately be preferable to the color grading issues in the clouds.

Agreed on both points. :)

The first thing I noticed when I opened the file was that, despite the underexposure, I still managed to burn some of the sky. Hard to see on an LCD outside, but what can you do. With wife and kids anxious to move on, no time to fiddle with enabling highlight alert. I'll see if I can desaturate that patch of pinkish clouds with a local brush...

Aye, I understand. That is one of the areas where having more DR can be very useful. It has nothing to do with being a novice or not, knowing how to choose exposure or not. Sometimes the tools in our hands don't tell us everything. For example, JPEG thumbnails are usually used to generate the histogram shown on the camera, and to determine when to show "blinkies" that indicate blown highlights when previewing images. Use of JPEG results in highly inaccurate feedback. However, sometimes, when your on the run, with the family, wouldn't it be really nice to be able to dial in a darker exposure than you think you could probably get away with...and just not have to worry that doing so will affect your IQ?

Two additional stops of editing latitude would allow that. It's just one of the things it can allow for. I don't think it's an invalid reason because it helps you continue to create better photography when your in a rush. There can't really be any bad reasons for having better technology. At the same time, having an additional two stops of editing latitude means if that arch WAS directly and brightly lit by the sun...you could have still gotten a photo and been able to extract whatever amount of detail you wanted to from the shadows, without running into nasty color noise, banding, etc.



Based on the tone around here, I can only assume the following:

Just because you used a camera with a better sensor to get either shot, one with diffuse lighting vs. one with direct lighting, and were able to lift the shadows more, would likely get you labeled either as a total noob who doesn't know how to expose, or a poser who isn't a "real" photographer who takes on the challenge of creating a real work of art with limited equipment...

Seriously...  ::)

Having better tech is useful, but is it always required?

Canon has to balance their investment and return across multiple lines within their camera business, and to be successful they're not always going to change at the pace we want. That they have the tech via patents but chose not yet to implement it means the business case does not stack up in terms of the cost of producing it vs the extra revenue it will bring.

Where I think you have to be careful Jrista is that you have stated that other than for astro photography, most of your shots are at higher ISO where Canon is not lagging behind. Your shots demonstrate that you can take good pictures. Yet you seem to have completely lost your rag with Canon (not anyone here) because they chose still not to implement their better tech.

Being passionate, voicing the need for change is fine. Appearing to suggest that Canon needs to adapt their ways or they will be the next dinosaur is somewhat out of character for you.

Will Canon be here in 10 years time? Not sure. The photography market is under threat because there is a high percentage of the population who are happy with the quality from their smartphones. That's hit revenues quite a bit, couple with a global recession. Many companies, including Canon, are being more cautious.

Smaller companies are always less risk adverse... They have less to lose, and everything to gain. Nikon chose to side with another company who had nothing to lose, Sony. And the competition is great as a result. Ditto mirror less. More choice is good. Will Nikon survive their decision better than Canon? I suspect Sony will buy them in a few years time as they struggle to adapt.

I'm just not convinced personally that there is sufficient gain by moving to Nikon or Sony. Your mileage may differ. A friend of mine sold his 5d mk iii and probably about 10k euros of lenses, retaining his 600mm and 7d. He swapped to Fuji, so it can be done....

Like I said, your contribution to explaining a lot of the tech here has been welcome. I would welcome improvements in Canon sensor, sure would.
If life is all about what you do in the time that you have, then photography is about the pictures you take not the kit that took it. Still it's fun to talk about the kit, present or future :)

MichaelHodges

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #413 on: August 24, 2014, 07:43:12 PM »
Hmm...after reading 28 pages of this, I'm pretty sure that "do you really need it?" is not an adequate justification for not improving out-of-camera IQ.


Stu_bert

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #414 on: August 24, 2014, 07:45:46 PM »
The current sensors are not holding me back from anything I want to produce... To a certain extent photography as an art form is defined by its limitations.


Clearly you don't get it. A camera is nothing more than a mechanical box. It will always be limited. To be a photographer is to understand those limitations, which can never be separated from the medium. And, to use those limitations to produce works of distinct, personal vision.

In its highest form, those images will speak to people and convey a message than transcends the image itself.

Sure, technology marches on and it's nice to be able to take advantage of those advancements to make images that are technically improved. But, never equate technical perfection with quality.

Time marches on, but Robert Frank's grainy, unsharp, less than perfect images don't prevent him from remaining the most influential photographer of the second half of the 20th century. A photographer who accomplishment remains unmatched today.

Any photographer who can't produce a great image because of the limitations of his or her equipment was never much of a photographer in the first place.

I broadly agree with your comments. However, on the last sentence I think you need to be careful as it does depend on the subject. The tech, say AF, allows you to perhaps get more  keepers than you might have done with less capable tech. A picture shot 50 years ago may be fantastic, but to many people if it had been shot with modern equipment it would be better for it.

LuLa did an editorial on the same subject a while back,and I believe the conclusion was, better tech makes things better, but is not a substitute. A camera may indeed allow a novice to take a technically better picture than otherwise. But it would indeed be the novice that might take a great picture - I think it will be a while before we have cameras telling us where, when and how to stand, what lens, aperture etc. This is what makes a great photograph, the photographer's vision.....
« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 06:55:36 AM by Stu_bert »
If life is all about what you do in the time that you have, then photography is about the pictures you take not the kit that took it. Still it's fun to talk about the kit, present or future :)

raptor3x

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 448
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #415 on: August 24, 2014, 07:47:36 PM »
Let me compare the 70D to the A6000.

I know I specifically mentioned the A5100 when talking about the sensor, but I was speaking generally of Sony's crop cameras compared to Canon's in terms of overall camera capability so I'll use the a6000 as my example.

The a6000 is much cheaper at $800 (actually $648 now on Amazon).

Ok, that's true.


The a6000 is full metal compared to 70D being plastic.

I haven't seen any information on the internals so have no idea on whether or not this is true.

The a6000 shoots up to 11fps compared to the 7fps on the 70D

Good luck actually tracking anything that's not moving in an easily predictable way.

The a6000 has a 179 focus points compared to 19 on the 70D

And exactly zero of those are cross-type whereas the 70D has 19 cross-type points through the VF and ~20 million line-type on the sensor.

The a6000 shoots 60p video at full hd (note: also with better quality)

This is true.

The a6000 has 100% viewfinder coverage compared to 98% on the 70D

The A6000 viewfinder has better coverage but it's tiny as hell and overall pretty awful.

On top of that, it has a superior sensor with more dynamic range, color sensitivity, and tonal range.

These are also true.

Another thing you can't overlook is that the A6000 has the typical godawful ergonomics and controls that all Sony mirrorless bodies share.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 08:25:09 PM by raptor3x »
Bodies: 1DX,1Ds3,5D3,X-T1,A7R,E-M1 Lenses:  12.40 2.8, 16-35L F4 IS, X 18-55 2.8-4, Σ 35 1.4 A, 35 2.8 FE, Σ 50 1.4 A, 24-70L II, 85 1.8, 100L IS, 135L,  70-200L F2.8 IS II

Stu_bert

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #416 on: August 24, 2014, 07:48:12 PM »
Hmm...after reading 28 pages of this, I'm pretty sure that "do you really need it?" is not an adequate justification for not improving out-of-camera IQ.

How about staying financially secure enough to be around for the next 10 years? I believe the perspective is from Canon... How much will people not buy their kit and bring revenue if they don't change it this time....
If life is all about what you do in the time that you have, then photography is about the pictures you take not the kit that took it. Still it's fun to talk about the kit, present or future :)

x-vision

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #417 on: August 24, 2014, 07:49:46 PM »

Let me also add, I'm not saying Canon's cameras are terrible. In fact, they're quite capable of getting good results. It's just that Canon no longer seems to care about having the best image quality (at least sub $6k) and being on the cutting edge in terms of features and sensor, and to me it's disappointing, regardless of sales figures, that other companies can offer overall better sensors AND better cameras, at a cheaper price.

If you want to measure "better" by sales figures, go ahead but I'm just talking about my subjective views of "better."

My sentiments exactly!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #417 on: August 24, 2014, 07:49:46 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #418 on: August 24, 2014, 07:58:45 PM »
@Famateur: Because of the fact that the sky was overcast, that dispersed a lot of the light, resulting a higher diffuse ambient level. The dynamic range of the scene was within the dynamic range of the sensor. A scene that was directly lit by the sun would actually have had higher dynamic range, and actually posed a greater problem for lifting the shadows.

Given the unprocessed version of your image, I would offer that you could have underexposed slightly more, and avoided the pinkish/purple toning that occurred when you recovered the highlights in the clouds. You might have had slightly more noise in the foreground, but I think that would ultimately be preferable to the color grading issues in the clouds.

Agreed on both points. :)

The first thing I noticed when I opened the file was that, despite the underexposure, I still managed to burn some of the sky. Hard to see on an LCD outside, but what can you do. With wife and kids anxious to move on, no time to fiddle with enabling highlight alert. I'll see if I can desaturate that patch of pinkish clouds with a local brush...

Aye, I understand. That is one of the areas where having more DR can be very useful. It has nothing to do with being a novice or not, knowing how to choose exposure or not. Sometimes the tools in our hands don't tell us everything. For example, JPEG thumbnails are usually used to generate the histogram shown on the camera, and to determine when to show "blinkies" that indicate blown highlights when previewing images. Use of JPEG results in highly inaccurate feedback. However, sometimes, when your on the run, with the family, wouldn't it be really nice to be able to dial in a darker exposure than you think you could probably get away with...and just not have to worry that doing so will affect your IQ?

Two additional stops of editing latitude would allow that. It's just one of the things it can allow for. I don't think it's an invalid reason because it helps you continue to create better photography when your in a rush. There can't really be any bad reasons for having better technology. At the same time, having an additional two stops of editing latitude means if that arch WAS directly and brightly lit by the sun...you could have still gotten a photo and been able to extract whatever amount of detail you wanted to from the shadows, without running into nasty color noise, banding, etc.



Based on the tone around here, I can only assume the following:

Just because you used a camera with a better sensor to get either shot, one with diffuse lighting vs. one with direct lighting, and were able to lift the shadows more, would likely get you labeled either as a total noob who doesn't know how to expose, or a poser who isn't a "real" photographer who takes on the challenge of creating a real work of art with limited equipment...

Seriously...  ::)

Having better tech is useful, but is it always required?

Canon has to balance their investment and return across multiple lines within their camera business, and to be successful they're not always going to change at the pace we want. That they have the tech via patents but chose not yet to implement it means the business case does not stack up in terms of the cost of producing it vs the extra revenue it will bring.

Where I think you have to be careful Jrista is that you have stated that other than for astro photography, most of your shots are at higher ISO where Canon is not lagging behind. Your shots demonstrate that you can take good pictures. Yet you seem to have completely lost your rag with Canon (not anyone here) because they chose still not to implement their better tech.

Being passionate, voicing the need for change is fine. Appearing to suggest that Canon needs to adapt their ways or they will be the next dinosaur is somewhat out of character for you.

Will Canon be here in 10 years time? Not sure. The photography market is under threat because there is a high percentage of the population who are happy with the quality from their smartphones. That's hit revenues quite a bit, couple with a global recession. Many companies, including Canon, are being more cautious.

Smaller companies are always less risk adverse... They have less to lose, and everything to gain. Nikon chose to side with another company who had nothing to lose, Sony. And the competition is great as a result. Ditto mirror less. More choice is good. Will Nikon survive their decision better than Canon? I suspect Sony will buy them in a few years time as they struggle to adapt.

I'm just not convinced personally that there is sufficient gain by moving to Nikon or Sony. Your mileage may differ. A friend of mine sold his 5d mk iii and probably about 10k euros of lenses, retaining his 600mm and 7d. He swapped to Fuji, so it can be done....

Like I said, your contribution to explaining a lot of the tech here has been welcome. I would welcome improvements in Canon sensor, sure would.

First, I totally agree...I think at some point Sony will probably buy Nikon. There is obviously something wrong with Nikon's strategy. It isn't the technology...so it's something else. I myself see them as being schizophrenic, they make odd business decisions and seem to waste money on pointless things that are unlikely to recoup all the R&D costs, let alone make them money.

There are some out there who think that in a few years time, the only three players left in the ILC market will be Canon, Nikon and Sony, and possibly just Canon and Sony. The rest will either merge, fold, or enter the smartphone camera market in one way or another (kind of like Sony's QX line.) I don't know, I think more companies will ally with Sony in one way or another, use their sensors. Sony may scoop a couple of them up. In the end, there may well indeed end up being only three major players in the ILC market.

Just to be clear, I have no intention of "switching" brands. If I do anything, it will be adding another brand to my kit. There are still problems with that. I despise the fact that Sony chose a lossy "raw" format...it doesn't even qualify to be called RAW since it's lossy. I'd have an A7r already if not for that. I also have never lied about my opinion of Nikon ergonomics. So, it's not an ideal situation. However...for my landscape photography...which, how often have you seen me share landscapes? Rarely. :P I have never cared for the editing latitude of my Canon files at low ISO. Even with good NR, you still have to pick some balance between shadow detail and shadow noise. I'm quite good with Topaz DeNoise 5, it is a very effective program. But even that still eats detail for breakfast if you really push the NR far enough that Canon shadows look like Exmor shadows.

My high ISO photography is great, I'm happy with it. I have no doubt I still have years of learning left for birds and wildlife, my work doesn't even compare to the pros. However, my low ISO photography? I've never been satisfied with it. I have some decent shots, but, eh. I figured Canon would have had a high DR part out by now, so I didn't let it bother me. But now it seems Canon is content with what they have...for whatever reasons....and I'm not. I don't like fighting with noise in the shadows. I don't like having to obliterate detail to clean my landscape shadows up. I just don't like it...never have. I was patient, I waited. I'm tired of waiting. I wait so often, wait on people, companies, technology.

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:

http://500px.com/photo/74066923/if-2-by-zsolt-kiss

The sun is fully realized there...and the foreground detail is, quite detailed. I think that's an amazing shot. I've tried shooting into the sun before with my Canon cameras. I'm fully and well versed in ETTR, I know exactly how to use it. I've used GND filters. I've NEVER been able to actually do what this photographer did with a D800. That's a scene with tons of DR....from deep shadows behind the rock and mountain, to the sun itself (which isn't blown in any way that I can see.) As far as I can tell, that was an f/22, 1s ISO 100 shot. I would LOVE to be able to do that!

As much as we, all being Canon fans, want to defend the company...they are behind. And they are falling farther and farther behind. I'm not joking when I say that Canon sensor technology is archaic. It really, sadly, is. If the 7D II gets a minimal evolutionary update to the 70D sensor...then, just as sad, that fact remains true. That disappoints me.

Lee Jay

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2003
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #419 on: August 24, 2014, 08:04:37 PM »
I just think it's embarrassing how Canon's top of the line crop cameras are so far behind technologically to Sony's.

Can you please list the features that make a camera like the Sony A5100 so technologically superior to a top of the line Canon crop camera.  Feel free to discuss advantages in areas like native lens selection, AF speed, frame rate, focus tracking of moving subjects, integration with a radio-controlled off-camera flash system, etc. 

If you mean sensor and not camera, please say so.  As I've said repeatedly, people don't buy bare silicon sensors to take pictures, they buy cameras.

Let me compare the 70D to the A6000.

I know I specifically mentioned the A5100 when talking about the sensor, but I was speaking generally of Sony's crop cameras compared to Canon's in terms of overall camera capability so I'll use the a6000 as my example.

The a6000 is much cheaper at $800 (actually $648 now on Amazon).
The a6000 is full metal compared to 70D being plastic.
The a6000 shoots up to 11fps compared to the 7fps on the 70D
The a6000 has a 179 focus points compared to 19 on the 70D
The a6000 shoots 60p video at full hd (note: also with better quality)
The a6000 has 100% viewfinder coverage compared to 98% on the 70D

On top of that, it has a superior sensor with more dynamic range, color sensitivity, and tonal range.

Don't forget, the a6000 has a lousy viewfinder, lousy tracking autofocus, absolutely horrid ergonomics, tragic battery life, and a poor supporting system.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #419 on: August 24, 2014, 08:04:37 PM »