December 11, 2016, 01:55:07 AM

Author Topic: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?  (Read 214116 times)

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5452
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #450 on: August 24, 2014, 10:44:19 PM »
So many things I would love to respond to. However, I'm where I think everyone in this thread should be right now: out doing photography. I am currently at Kiowa-Bennett Rd. and Hwy 79...i just finished photographing a field of sunflowers and am preparing to try and photograph the milky way (although we'll se how that goes...I'm just east of DIA...).

I left this debate twice yesterday to scout photography spots like this one. I left it again today to actually do photography. I encourage everyone not to get so wrapped up in the debate, as important as it may be to some of us, that they forget to do the thing with their gear that we all debate about anyway. :P

Saggitairius, Scorpius, Cygnus and more beckon...catch you chums later.  ::)
+1
For me it was a canoe, a storm case of gear, egrets, herons, ducks, geese, turtles, and a very elusive kingfisher. A day well spent!
The best camera is the one in your hands

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #450 on: August 24, 2014, 10:44:19 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5336
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #451 on: August 24, 2014, 10:53:20 PM »
So many things I would love to respond to. However, I'm where I think everyone in this thread should be right now: out doing photography. I am currently at Kiowa-Bennett Rd. and Hwy 79...i just finished photographing a field of sunflowers and am preparing to try and photograph the milky way (although we'll se how that goes...I'm just east of DIA...).

I left this debate twice yesterday to scout photography spots like this one. I left it again today to actually do photography. I encourage everyone not to get so wrapped up in the debate, as important as it may be to some of us, that they forget to do the thing with their gear that we all debate about anyway. :P

Saggitairius, Scorpius, Cygnus and more beckon...catch you chums later.  ::)
+1
For me it was a canoe, a storm case of gear, egrets, herons, ducks, geese, turtles, and a very elusive kingfisher. A day well spent!

Absolutely!

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #452 on: August 24, 2014, 11:39:17 PM »
What, exactly, is the calculation you use to determine Photographic DR? Or is the calculation simply: "Shoot a step wedge and judge visually whether you have X stops or Y stops of DR?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grain irregularity was itself noise.

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

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #453 on: August 24, 2014, 11:46:24 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.)

Indeed, all measurements in a digital sensor contains noise. The luminance range that is detectable depends on the amount of noise present, discussing DR in digital photography is discussing noise which boils down to statistics. Until dtaylor understand that he would best avoid these discussion and instead go hide under a bridge but he doesn't have that much sense so it is pointless to waste energy on him.

Yeah...probably right.

Pretty smug considering neither one of you have actually tested your theories.

When you do and you see gray patches beyond the 10 stops (or whatever) you predict Canon cameras have because "sensel noise!", come back with a more humble attitude so you can learn.

PureClassA

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1373
  • Canon since age 5. The A1
    • Shields Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #454 on: August 24, 2014, 11:46:56 PM »
So many things I would love to respond to. However, I'm where I think everyone in this thread should be right now: out doing photography. I am currently at Kiowa-Bennett Rd. and Hwy 79...i just finished photographing a field of sunflowers and am preparing to try and photograph the milky way (although we'll se how that goes...I'm just east of DIA...).

I left this debate twice yesterday to scout photography spots like this one. I left it again today to actually do photography. I encourage everyone not to get so wrapped up in the debate, as important as it may be to some of us, that they forget to do the thing with their gear that we all debate about anyway. :P

Saggitairius, Scorpius, Cygnus and more beckon...catch you chums later.  ::)

Hey can I pick your knowledgeable brain on a few astrophotography queries?  Have a 6D & 7D. Would love some insight on IR sensor conversion to shoot astro. Been considering getting my 7D modified, but from WHOM?!?  Seems like a lot of places do it.  I know little of it but I'd much rather get your advice than continuing to endlessly google search. What do you use? after market modifications? filters, etc... ?  Feel free to email off the blog.  shieldspics@gmail.com   Thanks!
Financial Planner by day, Photography by heart.

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

TeT

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 788
  • I am smiling because I am happy...
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #455 on: August 24, 2014, 11:49:10 PM »
So many things I would love to respond to. However, I'm where I think everyone in this thread should be right now: out doing photography. I am currently at Kiowa-Bennett Rd. and Hwy 79...i just finished photographing a field of sunflowers and am preparing to try and photograph the milky way (although we'll se how that goes...I'm just east of DIA...).

I left this debate twice yesterday to scout photography spots like this one. I left it again today to actually do photography. I encourage everyone not to get so wrapped up in the debate, as important as it may be to some of us, that they forget to do the thing with their gear that we all debate about anyway. :P

Saggitairius, Scorpius, Cygnus and more beckon...catch you chums later.  ::)

Are you sure it is sunflowers, I thought they were growing other stuff in CO these days :)

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #456 on: August 24, 2014, 11:49:37 PM »
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....

Every single Canon ILC I have purchased has had better IQ then the camera I purchased before it. The next Canon camera will as well. To say nothing of their lens advancements. As for DR,

Not that I'm hostile to other brands. Canon does not have a FF MILC so I imagine a Sony A7 is in my future.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #456 on: August 24, 2014, 11:49:37 PM »

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #457 on: August 24, 2014, 11:57:00 PM »
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

From reviews and comments it simply cannot track like a 70D. What good is 11fps and 179 AF points if the subject doesn't stay in focus as it's moving?

Nice camera no doubt...but mirrorless claims of "world's fastest/best AF" are laughable at this point in time. It never really is that.

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5336
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #458 on: August 24, 2014, 11:58:42 PM »
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....

Every single Canon ILC I have purchased has had better IQ then the camera I purchased before it. The next Canon camera will as well. To say nothing of their lens advancements. As for DR,

Not that I'm hostile to other brands. Canon does not have a FF MILC so I imagine a Sony A7 is in my future.

The sad thing here is, despite my asking you for an objective definition of photographic Dr, not one single thing you have said in this entire thread has been anything but subjective. Do you not see the problem with that? (Honest question.)

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5336
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #459 on: August 25, 2014, 12:03:49 AM »
So many things I would love to respond to. However, I'm where I think everyone in this thread should be right now: out doing photography. I am currently at Kiowa-Bennett Rd. and Hwy 79...i just finished photographing a field of sunflowers and am preparing to try and photograph the milky way (although we'll se how that goes...I'm just east of DIA...).

I left this debate twice yesterday to scout photography spots like this one. I left it again today to actually do photography. I encourage everyone not to get so wrapped up in the debate, as important as it may be to some of us, that they forget to do the thing with their gear that we all debate about anyway. :P

Saggitairius, Scorpius, Cygnus and more beckon...catch you chums later.  ::)

Are you sure it is sunflowers, I thought they were growing other stuff in CO these days :)

Oh dear god. :P When will it stop!! :D

Every time, whether it's "growing" or anything else that can be related to weed, someone makes a joke about it these days. :p Guess we asked for it.

BTW, never partaken of the stuff myself, and I voted to tax the crap put of it. :)

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4547
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #460 on: August 25, 2014, 12:05:10 AM »
looks pretty decent to me
if there a some deals or sale down the road after the bleeding edge stampede dies off i might pick one up and leave it stuck on the tamron 150-600
APS-H Fanboy

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #461 on: August 25, 2014, 12:05:34 AM »
I am personally convinced that the D800 or D810 could improve my landscape photography. Over the last couple of years, I've seen too many incredible photos on 500px and 1x that demonstrated the incredible power of having two additional stops of DR/Editing Latitude. This one in particular is just mind blowing...I'd LOVE to see anyone try to replicate that with a 5D III. I'd honestly bet good money it's impossible:

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

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

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

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #462 on: August 25, 2014, 12:07:57 AM »
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.

Please post YOUR step wedge shots for evaluation...RAWs...along with lighting details. Thank you.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #462 on: August 25, 2014, 12:07:57 AM »

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #463 on: August 25, 2014, 12:11:58 AM »
Yeah maybe because IR uses NR!!!! of unknown and random amounts while the other measuring company does not.

Because ACR default = "unknown and random amounts...UNKOWN...RANDOM!!!"

Then again, NR doesn't make black steps gray  ::)

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #464 on: August 25, 2014, 12:18:24 AM »
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.

The reason 99% of people bring this up in forums is because they saw a test a guy did once where he pushed D800 shadows and 5D3 shadows and the 5D3 had lots of color noise.

Of course they didn't realize that color noise disappears with a little NR which he had turned completely off on the Canon.

And then they confused latitude and DR. (The fact that both cameras recorded the same details in the shadows means the DR was actually the same.)

Quote
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.

Yes, all of us saying that Exmor does have less shadow noise and that is nice to work with are Canon fanboys who can't handle it when Canon is not declared #1  ::)

It's the guys stomping their feet and saying if the 7D2 doesn't give them 36 MP with 20 stops of DR and FF high ISO that they are LEAVING Canon because Canon just DOESN'T CARE about them and is falling behind because their sensors haven't improved since the 10D.

Those are the rational ones  ;D

Quote
And the DR guys made such a huge deal because they know it takes time to fix

ACR NR sliders are hard!  ;D  ;D  ;D

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #464 on: August 25, 2014, 12:18:24 AM »