December 10, 2016, 10:17:08 AM

Author Topic: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?  (Read 214055 times)

raptor3x

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 448
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #420 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: 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

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #420 on: August 24, 2014, 08:09:21 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20048
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #421 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 M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

racebit

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 45
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #422 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

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #423 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

  • Rebel T6i
  • ****
  • Posts: 121
  • Curiosity didn't kill me, yet.
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #424 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: 20048
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #425 on: August 24, 2014, 09:16:18 PM »
—snip—

Excellent, well reasoned post!
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

rrcphoto

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1222
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #426 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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #426 on: August 24, 2014, 09:23:17 PM »

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4757
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #427 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.

Lee Jay

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2004
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #428 on: August 24, 2014, 09:30:51 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.

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

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4757
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #429 on: August 24, 2014, 09:32:03 PM »
Total DR? The 70D is 1/3 stop behind Exmor.

Utter lie and fabrication, even your favorite site, flat out says that the 70D feels like it has an old sensor in regards to low ISO performance and that it acts like it's more than 2 stops behind Exmor.



Lee Jay

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2004
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #430 on: August 24, 2014, 09:33:31 PM »
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!!!!!

A 2-3 stop difference in base ISO DR actually does mean less to me than a 1/3 stop difference in high ISO performance.  This is because I virtually never run into base ISO DR problems (even with the 18MP 1.6-crop sensor), but I'm always struggling against high ISO limits.

MichaelHodges

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #431 on: August 24, 2014, 09:33:46 PM »
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

If I was in the market, I wouldn't buy into this watered down sales-speak.

It sounds like you're selling Tupperware.

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4757
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #432 on: August 24, 2014, 09:39:35 PM »
Shoot a transmission step wedge with a 70D, 5D3, or 1DX. (7D value actually looks about right.) When you see with your own two eyes that more then 11 stops worth of steps are gray, you will know that your theories are false. Then we can continue and discuss why.

Yeah maybe because IR uses NR!!!! of unknown and random amounts while the other measuring company does not.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #432 on: August 24, 2014, 09:39:35 PM »

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4757
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #433 on: August 24, 2014, 09:44:15 PM »
Side rant: you may be someone who just needs to get an Exmor camera for whatever you're doing with astro. I don't know. 99% of people who complain about this are complaining because they don't have bragging rights and that's all. Too much pixel peeping and not enough viewing/printing real photos.

Dude, the whole reason people started looking into banding and DR and figuring out what was going on was because they noticed things when out shooting, they didn't start out in the lab.

It's the little fanboys who can't handle it when anything they spend money on is not declared 100% the best in every single possible regard. The so-called DRoners actually can handle the truth when not every last aspect of the camera they bought doesn't end up being the best.

And the DR guys made such a huge deal because they know it takes time to fix that so you need to complain way ahead of your breaking point and you need to complain loudly if there is a prayer to get Canon to feel like bothering to spend money to fix things up.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20048
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #434 on: August 24, 2014, 09:44:38 PM »
If I was in the market, I wouldn't buy into this watered down sales-speak.
It sounds like you're selling Tupperware.

Yeah. I mean...long lenses?  Who needs 'em?  200mm is plenty, just get closer.  Good flashes and high Xsync speeds?  Useless.  Servo tracking for moving subjects?  Phth – real men use manual focus, and the a6000 has peaking so that's even better!
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #434 on: August 24, 2014, 09:44:38 PM »