September 17, 2014, 09:38:17 AM

Author Topic: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?  (Read 64584 times)

MichaelHodges

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #420 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.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #420 on: August 24, 2014, 07:43:12 PM »

Stu_bert

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #421 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

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #422 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: 1Ds3,5D3,X-T1,A7 Lenses:  16-35L F4 IS, X 18-55 2.8-4, Σ 35 1.4 A, Σ 50 1.4 A, 24-70L II, 85 1.8, 100L IS, 135L,  70-200L F2.8 IS II

Stu_bert

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #423 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

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 473
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #424 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!

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4480
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #425 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.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

Lee Jay

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 930
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #426 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 #426 on: August 24, 2014, 08:04:37 PM »

raptor3x

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #427 on: August 24, 2014, 08:09:21 PM »
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.

I think I'm in the exact same boat as you where the dynamic range limitation is something I rarely come across because of what I shoot but when it does I find it really annoying.  Originally I was considering picking up a D800E+14-24 for the little bit of landscape shooting that I do, the main reason I was pushing that off was because I've never been terribly fond of Nikon's ergonomics (although they're still miles better than any of the mirrorless cameras I've tried).  When MagicLantern released DualISO, switching to Nikon pretty much went out the window.  I did pickup an A7 to try out the Exmor sensors, but honestly that camera feels like a chore to use plus the high ISO performance is surprisingly poor and I'll probably get rid of it sometime soon.
Bodies: 1Ds3,5D3,X-T1,A7 Lenses:  16-35L F4 IS, X 18-55 2.8-4, Σ 35 1.4 A, Σ 50 1.4 A, 24-70L II, 85 1.8, 100L IS, 135L,  70-200L F2.8 IS II

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14383
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #428 on: August 24, 2014, 08:44:03 PM »
Let me compare the 70D to the A6000.

The 70D has a vastly superior lens selection.  Telephoto lenses >200mm, including primes.  Fast tele primes.  Long macro lenses.  Etc.
The 70D has a 1-stop faster max shutter speed
The 70D has a 2/3-stop faster X-sync
The 70D has over double the shots per battery charge
If your 70D breaks, Canon will fix it with fast turnaround
The 70D has a robust ecosystem of flashes, accessories, etc., an ecosystem that Canon has a track record of developing vs. Sony's track record of abandonment


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

The 19 points of the 70D offer faster focusing and better tracking.  Also, you're comparing AF points on the image sensor with AF points of the dedicated AF sensor.  How about the proper comparison of points on the image sensor:

The a6000 has a 179 focus points compared to ~16 million on the 70D


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

You absolutely should measure "better" based on your subjective views.  That's how I measure "better" too.  However, your subjective views differ from my subjective views which differ from everyone else's – that's what makes them subjective. So...what is really better?  What sales figures tell us is what aggregated populations choose as 'better' based on actual buying decisions.  That's about as close as we'll get to an objective definition of better.  For dSLRs over the past 11 years, that's been Canon.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 08:45:42 PM by neuroanatomist »
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

racebit

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #429 on: August 24, 2014, 08:59:18 PM »
The key point is: this camera was promised to be revolutionary, the biggest evolution since the start of DSLR.
The listed specs show nothing of he sort, so I am still hoping the most important is still to be revealed.
I was not expecting nothing related to pure IQ, but concept related, like no-rolling shutter, hybrid viewfinder, functional layered sensor, perfect live-focus, or something else out of the ordinary. Let Canon tell us. Not just more AF points, more fps (who cares, I have 7fps and use always 3fps for BIF) and other incremental parameters.
But I am not disappointed yet, I am still hoping. Maybe the key is in the DPAF v2? Perfect live-focus?
CR still not clarified what electronic MF means, is it manual focus or micro focus adjustment?

sfunglee

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #430 on: August 24, 2014, 09:01:21 PM »
I simple see the major point i like on 7Dm2 compare 7d would be :

1) SD back up slot
2) Dual Digic 6
3) Better battery
4) 10fps
5) f/8 at center
6) Boost ISO
7) Servo AF on video
8) GPS
9) 65AF

bit down:

1) about 100% coverage? 7D is 100%
2) 60fps/video but not 4k
3) 20.2 Mp

Diltiazem

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 7
  • Curiosity didn't kill me, yet.
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #431 on: August 24, 2014, 09:08:30 PM »
What do you think if everyone here started emailing Canon, started hitting up their booths at conventions, and started loudly demanding better sensor IQ?

Of all the things that I have read of yours on CR that is the most extraordinary to date.

Demanding better IQ. Have you actually used a camera with the Sony Exmor sensor ? I know nothing about astrophotography, or whatever it's called; perhaps there is a benefit there, but to 'demand better IQ' with the exceptional sensors we now have........

I don't believe the sensors we have now are "exceptional". I believe they are "good", but relative to what's possible, they are not exceptional. They may have been exceptional five years ago...but, that was five years ago. Things change. Things ARE relative. And as I said (which you did not quote)...I'm not just speaking about low ISO DR. It's possible to have more high ISO DR, it's possible to have all this, both improved low and high ISO DR, WITH MORE PIXELS.

It's a simple question. Do you NOT want to have better IQ across the board? Truly? I mean, technology PROGRESSES. So, if you are honestly telling me that you do NOT want better top to bottom sensor IQ....

Then that is one of the most extraordinary comments I've ever read on these forums to date.

I think I got lost in fighting against DXO and defending Canon all these years, and forgot that I DO WANT BETTER! :P I WANT BETTER! I WANT MORE! I KNOW IT'S POSSIBLE, TOO. I honestly cannot think that I am ALONE on that front. I plain and simply don't even believe it. I think people here will only say they don't want more and better simply to continue defending their preferred brand. It's fine to prefer Canon. I do. I have many reasons for preferring them. However...that is no reason not to demand they give us more. I want D800 level low ISO IQ strait out of camera. I want ML-level high ISO DR strait out of camera. I want 70-80% Q.E. I want 50 megapixels. I can USE every single one of those sensor IQ improvements.

So...honestly...what's wrong with getting vocal about that TO CANON. You don't have to give a crap about any other brand...the point is to stand up and get vocal about your wants TO CANON, so your preferred brand will improve, will start offering you more capability.

I can understand your frustration. You want better sensor from Canon and you don’t see it happening anytime soon. You even fear that Canon might become  history if they don’t improve their sensors soon.
I see things a bit differently. I try to understand why Canon is not doing what some of us expect them to do? There could be several reasons.
1.   Technological limitations.
2.   Lack of market demand.
3.   Cost benefit analysis mandate that they stay with their current tech for now.

Technology: None of us really know what Canon is capable of at this point. But we know that they have not lost focus. They are exploring various options including on chip ADC, dual scale ADC, stacked layer sensor, microlens with higher refractive index, better implementation of BSI etc. There is also a myth that Canon has done nothing to improve their sensors. This graph would show that the opposite is true.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3619420
So, I see no reason to lose hope in Canon’s attention to sensor.

Market: Canon listens to market no less than any other camera company. Market demand varies depending on the market segment; but they can be broadly categorized as follows: a) easy operation and handling b) reasonable price c) durable product and reliable service d) functionality and efficiency matching camera class e) efficient and reasonably priced accessories including lenses f) IQ matching the camera class.
No one argues that Canon delivers as good as or better than competition in each of these categories with the exception of few who believe that Canon lags behind in IQ. This is a myth held by few who analyses pictures by graphs and numbers. If we take two modern cameras of the same class, one from Canon and one from Nikon/Sony; and we put up 100 pictures 50 from each, no one will be able to tell the difference, no one will go ‘WOW, this one has better IQ so it must have been shot by a Nikon’.  As a matter of fact there is high likelihood that most will prefer Canon because of its so called ‘Canon color’.
I shoot with both Canon (DR 11-12) and Nikon (DR 14). Sometimes I shoot the same scene with Canon and Nikon. And if I am not looking at the file name the only way I can tell the difference is by the presence or absence of greenish tint. 14 stops of DR doesn’t show up as you open the files except in rare situations where shadows will be slightly lighter in Nikon files, although that doesn’t automatically give a better looking picture. The advantage of low read noise comes during processing when dealing with shadows. With Nikon files you will need less NR in shadows. It has the potential to give you better shadow detail and color fidelity. But so much depends on other factors, such as the quality of the lens, technique or processing skill, that the difference is almost non-existent.  Exmor DR/processing latitude is better, but it is still not as good  as proper techniques such as fill flash, filter or multiple exposure blending.
So, there is a reason why low read noise hasn’t made any significant impact. People see pictures (not numbers). People don’t see any difference between Canon or Nikon. IQ of a given scene still depends vastly on the capability of the photographer, his technique, his processing skill and the lenses used.
What else is important in the market? #1 would be image of a brand. Those white lenses in the World Cup are more important in creating customer demand than any number DXO churns out. A lot of people do look at reviews before they buy a camera. Let’s take 70D for example.
Dpreview: Gold award
Camera labs: Highly recommended
Expert Review: 5 star
Tech Radar: 5 star
Photographyblog: 5 star
IR: Dave’s Pick
I am sure Canon understands that they need to improve read noise. But it is understandable why they don’t see any urgency in it. Their priority has been high ISO noise and in this respect they are very competitive. My guess would be that their next target is higher MP. We are likely to see higher MP cameras from Canon in a year.
Cost/benefit: We can only make guesses here. World economy hasn’t recovered. Cellphone is threatening the existence of camera and it has already replaced camera as the dominant photo taking tool. It makes every sense if Canon wants to remain as profitable as they can now so that they are better prepared to deal with the uncertainties of the future.

As a dual system user, Canon cameras along with lenses such as 24-70/II, 70-200/II, 135mm/2, 85mm/1,2, 17 and 90mm TS etc. remain my favorite photo taking tool, I use them more than 90% of the time.  I only wish that they come up with 100-400 MKII soon. :) And DR? I will wait till they address it. I won’t jump ship. I may actually sell my Nikon gears.

But yeah, I agree that we should make more noise about read noise in between times when we are not busy having fun with our Canon gears. :)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14383
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #432 on: August 24, 2014, 09:16:18 PM »
—snip—

Excellent, well reasoned post!
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #432 on: August 24, 2014, 09:16:18 PM »

rrcphoto

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #433 on: August 24, 2014, 09:23:17 PM »
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.

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3674
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #434 on: August 24, 2014, 09:29:16 PM »
Perhaps you can answer the question the DRones you're echoing have been unable to address – if Canon has been behind in low ISO DR for 4-5 years, and their market share hasn't eroded, then why does having less low ISO DR matter and why is it that Canon 'must respond'?...

Perhaps you should answer how you can take pictures with Canon stock or sale numbers?

And many a company weather the lazy storm for a while, before sales finally started taking a hit.



Quote

Neuro's comments pretty well sums it up. I realize this is a gearhead forum and gearheads have a tendency to obsess over small differences...but really...these are tiny differences that affect only the most narrow niche market out of a niche market of a niche market.

More like it's a fanboys forum for fanboys (although with jrisita no longer acting like one at all, it's maybe starting to make a change).

It's amusing that a 2-3 stop difference means nothing and yet when Canon does better for SNR and it's like 1/3 stop better than it's all wow Canon rules!!!!!


Quote
So, let's stop with all the "if Canon doesn't do ...they are doomed" talk. It just makes you look foolish.

Which would NOT be a good thing for Canon users.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #434 on: August 24, 2014, 09:29:16 PM »