70D and Dxomark....

[Don Haines]

Is ownership of a certain type of cat compulsory on CR ?

And does circular logic have anything to do with pi ?

Must be a Nikon cat..... The fur has a lot more dynamic range than the fur on my cat.....

 

[Sporgon]

Shot this on jpeg, and is straight off the camera, in mid day sun. Even from jpeg I can bring the soil in the flower pot up four or five stops with no noise what so ever, but then of course despite this being of a white cat in the mid day sun the total EV range from highlight to deepest shadow is only around 6 stops, and that is accommodating for the intense reflection from the white fur.

The intense reflection is blown, actually.

You haven't down loaded the compress file from CR and try to read the highlights have you ?

Another faux pas ?

Yes, stop doing them.

I downloaded what you posted. There is a blown spot on the forehead of the cat. It does not matter what the RGB values are. They depend on the processing.

Why don't you post the JPEG from the camera before you start blaming it on the CR compression? That will answer the question.

Well seeing as this thread has gravitated right down to rock bottom with pictures of cats, I'll put my family snap of the cat up for Pi. I've posted the original picture again: the one I used was the 6x4" image for printing which is straight off camera as jpeg but has been re sized and a contrast enhancing un-sharp mask which is what I do with all snap shots for printing.

The second and third are crops for the full jpeg, from camera, They will look dull on the web as I have left them in Adobe RGB.

I consider this perfect exposure for the scene considering it was shot as a joey with no intention to pp.

(Just a point; if anyone is wondering why the flower pot is blurred it's because this picture was shot with my daughter's new "art" series lens, the 70-300 non L which is sharp in the very middle and soft focus everywhere else.)

 

[Pi]

Still blown, sorry. It would not have been bad if it was not on the face.

Now, tell me, how a DR expert like you, in a supposedly 6 stop DR scene with an 11 stop DR camera, can blow the highlights, and brag about it?

You do not need a Nikon for that, you just needed to expose lower, or shoot in RAW.

 

[aj1575]

I made an interesting table to compare IQ of different cameras (the EOS 70D is also part of it). If you like to check it out, I started a new thread here:http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16749.msg309137#msg309137

 

[zlatko]

The discussion of sensor performance vs DxOMark is pointless. I was a Nikon user (D5000, D90, D700, D3s and D4) and now I own 5DIII and never been so satisfied. The colors I get now are far better than before and I have now much less work with raw files.

It is interesting how real world experience can change our beliefs. The DxO experts have everyone believing that Nikon produces better color.

its interesting how people can make a statement like this
no mention of color profiles, contrast curves etc
Yes Nikon has the advantage of a better color filters CFA, you just have to take advantage of that
I call this knowledge
if you like nice colors from beginning and strait out from the camera and for your eye pleasure , buy a compact camera
they are optimized regarding contrast curves and color fidelity and s-rgb
I'm surprised that so many member show so much ignorance regarding SLR cameras , color handling and what the out come are for

In other words, Nikon color requires more fixing than Canon color. That's what "taking advantage" of that "Nikon advantage" really means in practice. Murilo_mms shot with a series of Nikon cameras, including two of their best & most expensive, and then he bought a Canon 5D3 (not even Canon's best / most expensive) and the colors are "far better than before and I have now much less work with raw files." Smart photographers know when a camera maker makes their work better & easier — that's not ignorance.

 

[jrista]

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this and maybe I'm missing something here, but when I compare the D7100 to the 70D and 7D on the graphs there doesn't seem to be all that much difference.

I admit I'm not a dynamic range freak, and I'm more interested in ISO performance, but it doesn't seem like there is any real world difference between the Nikon and Canon sensors.

My conclusion: The 70D sensor offers an almost imperceptible improvement over the 7D and the D7100 might be an equally imperceptible improvement over both the Canon's but not enough to make buying a camera based on the sensor alone worthwhile.

For all the talk about how antiquated Canon's sensor tech is, I'm not seeing it in these results. Even their summary (if I read it correctly) says the Canon and Nikon sensors are only about a fifth of a stop different in ISO performance. One-fifth of a stop?

Okay...I'm waiting for the flaming to start.

The DXO scores all boil down to DR, particularly low ISO DR, though. Sony's improvement in low ISO DR is what gives all the cameras that use Exmor or Exmor RS such a lead...DR is very heavily weighted in DXO's scores. If you look at individual measurements, such as SNR (which is more useful for determining high ISO performance), then you are indeed correct...very little difference between pretty much any brand these days.

 

[jrista]

"A smaller, less successful, non market-leading company like Nikon treats me better[...]"

That is often true, actually. In the audiophile world, big companies are not big, for example.

However, given Nikon's customer support track record, it does not seem to be true with them specifically. ;P

Canon, on the other hand, has been winning awards for their customer service and service responsiveness for years...

 

[jrista]

I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what that 3 stop of extra DR can mean (5D3 on top, D800 on the bottom):

All this really proves that even two of the best cameras currently made are each capable of producing suboptimal images when used incorrectly.

It isn't that the 5D III was used incorrectly. Fred Miranda was the one who did that review, and he is a respectable authority on such matters. The original sample images were shot to keep the whites from blowing in a high DR scene...and this, quite plain and simply, is indeed the result when you lift the shadows to compensate. There isn't any question that Canon has issues with their low ISO DR. It has been blotchy and banded for well over five years now, and it is Canon's weakest point.

Given DXO's review of the 70D, it's clear they have not put any effort into improving sensor IQ. Canon's focus is clearly different, and the weight of their focus has clearly shifted heavily towards video. I was hoping to see a better DR improvement for the 70D, and these results are rather disheartening. I'm a stills photographer, and I use my DSLR for still photographs. Quite frankly, I would really like to see Canon invest some of their huge cash flow into improving their products for their primary intended purpose, and not some secondary "sometimes convenient" purpose like video.

The Magic Lantern crew proved that Canon's sensors are capable of capturing the full 14 stops of dynamic range allowed by a 14-bit ADC...I think its high time Canon stopped their focus in video and returned their focus to EVERY aspect of IQ, including factors based on the sensor. I've argued in the past that there are other factors that affect IQ, such as AF system, but Canon has already perfected those technologies. Fred Miranda's comparison of the 5DIII and D800 is an excellent demonstration of why Canon should finally shift their focus back towards improving still photography IQ. I don't even think the problem is in the sensor, either...I think its in the ADC...and Canon pretty much whips up a new version of that every major release cycle anyway...so there shouldn't be any reason they couldn't invest some serious R&D into solving their low ISO IQ problem.

No more clever arguments from me about why Canon's products are good. They are, but that isn't the point any longer. I truly hope to see something significant on the sensor/ADC IQ front with the 7D II...otherwise, the 5D III will probably be my last Canon DSLR purchase until they stop focusing on secondary video functionality and refocus on the primary purpose of a DSLR: photography.

 

[Murilo_mms]

if you like nice colors from beginning and strait out from the camera and for your eye pleasure , buy a compact camera

And if you want to spend more time on Lightroom than shooting go ahead...

Smart photographers know when a camera maker makes their work better & easier — that's not ignorance.

That is the point!!!

 

[jrista]

Are some of you willing to discuss color profiles, colors, and for what the pictures are aimed for?
how different CFA works, lights and kelvin?
contrast curves etc=the physical conditions of a SLR ?????

Please let us avoid statements like that Canon has better color reproduction, it is not true
on the contrary, they are worse because of the color filter, which is shown by DXO measurements

Sensor pixels are just buckets for ranges of frequencies of light. Thinning of the CFA improves transmission, thus increasing real sensor sensitivity, while giving some pixels a bit of frequency overlap. It's a good thing for high ISO performance to have a weaker CFA. It is also something that can be corrected in post.

As for color fidelity, assuming the photographer does not immenently DEMAND that their direct from camera color performance be utterly perfect, color fidelity and accuracy is really a mathematical problem, not a CFA problem. You can tweak color reproduction to your hearts content in post with some color profiling, and produce whatever color you want. If anyone doubts this...just take a look at some of the stunning landscapes countless photographers have taken with the 5D III (which has a weakened CFA):

http://500px.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Canon+5D+III+landscape

These are all largely pointless debates...Nikon vs. Canon color depth bits, minute 1-2% differences in SNR, etc. 22 vs. 24 bits doesn't make any real-world difference. I would be doubtful 20 vs. 26 bits would make a difference, since ultimately, the color quality of your photos boils down to style...how you process your work, not which sensor captured it.

Canon needs to refocus on stills IQ, improve their low ISO DR, certainly. But seriously, if we need to stop quibbling about something, lets stop quibbling about differences that fall within the margin of error. Color is a is a stylistic thing, and you have full control over it in post. Dynamic range is a hardware thing, and given how much Canon has focused on video features for their entire DSLR line lately, I think Canon customers should be asking Canon to refocus on improving the quality of their products for STILLS photographers.

(Also, Mikael, please don't give anyone any spin about how Canon can't built a new fab, or is incapable of producing sensors on a smaller fabrication process because their only other fab that can do so is dedicated to compact sensor production, or anything like that. That is 100% purely your personal opinion, and has no basis in fact.)

 

[Murilo_mms]

Don´t get me wrong, I love Nikon and I loved all my cameras from Nikon. For me the best brand would be CanKon 8), because I do miss a lot of things that my previous Nikon cameras had.

Really - what's that? It would be interesting because the Magic Lantern people are always interested in ideas on how to enhance the Canon firmware, but unfortunately most people lack knowledge of both systems (you do know Magic Lantern, right)?

Yes, I do know Magic Lantern.

What I miss on Nikon:

- I was so used to nikon system that I did not needed to think to shoot. (Give me 2 or 3 more months and I will be there with canon)

- Nikon seems to be much more logical to use than canon. The comands on Nikon are much easier to learn.

- Spot metering is better on Nikon, as you do not need to metering with central point. Maybe with 1DX I was not complaing about that.


What I Love on Canon:

- As I told: Color out of camera is a lot better. Much less work on RAW files.

- Resolution is better. And I mean sharpness even after reduction.

- Lenses on Canon seems to be better, unless those ones that I like. I have owned a lot of lenses on nikon system (18 at total and at the end I owned just three: 24-70mm 2.8, 135mm 2.0DC - pretty amazing lens - and 50mm 1.8G). Canon 24-70mm 2.8 II on 2.8 is better and 135mm 2L is a little sharper and have much faster auto-focus than Nikon 135mm 2.0DC.

- 50mm 1.2L is a fuc@#$% amazing lens and the equivalent on Nikon System does not have autofocus...

That´s it.

 

[garyknrd]

I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what that 3 stop of extra DR can mean (5D3 on top, D800 on the bottom):

All this really proves that even two of the best cameras currently made are each capable of producing suboptimal images when used incorrectly.

It isn't that the 5D III was used incorrectly. Fred Miranda was the one who did that review, and he is a respectable authority on such matters. The original sample images were shot to keep the whites from blowing in a high DR scene...and this, quite plain and simply, is indeed the result when you lift the shadows to compensate. There isn't any question that Canon has issues with their low ISO DR. It has been blotchy and banded for well over five years now, and it is Canon's weakest point.

Given DXO's review of the 70D, it's clear they have not put any effort into improving sensor IQ. Canon's focus is clearly different, and the weight of their focus has clearly shifted heavily towards video. I was hoping to see a better DR improvement for the 70D, and these results are rather disheartening. I'm a stills photographer, and I use my DSLR for still photographs. Quite frankly, I would really like to see Canon invest some of their huge cash flow into improving their products for their primary intended purpose, and not some secondary "sometimes convenient" purpose like video.

The Magic Lantern crew proved that Canon's sensors are capable of capturing the full 14 stops of dynamic range allowed by a 14-bit ADC...I think its high time Canon stopped their focus in video and returned their focus to EVERY aspect of IQ, including factors based on the sensor. I've argued in the past that there are other factors that affect IQ, such as AF system, but Canon has already perfected those technologies. Fred Miranda's comparison of the 5DIII and D800 is an excellent demonstration of why Canon should finally shift their focus back towards improving still photography IQ. I don't even think the problem is in the sensor, either...I think its in the ADC...and Canon pretty much whips up a new version of that every major release cycle anyway...so there shouldn't be any reason they couldn't invest some serious R&D into solving their low ISO IQ problem.

No more clever arguments from me about why Canon's products are good. They are, but that isn't the point any longer. I truly hope to see something significant on the sensor/ADC IQ front with the 7D II...otherwise, the 5D III will probably be my last Canon DSLR purchase until they stop focusing on secondary video functionality and refocus on the primary purpose of a DSLR: photography.

+1

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Sticking your head in the sand is very dangerous in this forum.... there may be dangers lurking on the beach....

I like that croc/gator pic.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

So I was looking at some resolution charts for lenses yesterday.

Man the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR 2 sucks, like, those corners are terrible. To think that Nikon shooters have been wasting their lives with glass like that for so many years, almost half a decade now, sheesh, and it's so obvious too. It's like they've all got their head in the sand or something. I mean, obviously whatever talent you have is being severely limited if you use that system.

yes, the 70-200/2,8 VR2 is not the best regarding corners and together with a 24x36mm sensor, it is like a lot of lenses soft, and compared with for example Canon 70-200mk2 is the canon is much better
Now , it is not the only lens Nikon has, like Canon they have several and with better corner sharpness

Not the 24-70 2.8 though or 70-300 either.

Eventually if it really finally seems like Canon truly will never bother with more DR for another decade or two, I will switch, but I'd rather not if I don't have to. I'm starting to almost feel like it might be another decade for them or more. If the next round doesn't do anything for DR I wont buy it and will probably stop moving up in lenses, perhaps even dabble with a single lens and a Nikon as a second body and hope there is some sign the 5D5 round will do it, if it looks like not then I might finally switch over (keeping 5D3 and a simple lens or two for video if Nikon hasn't gotten anything going for video by then).

You'd actually switch over 2 stops of dynamic range? If Sony started making sensors with 20 stops of range that would be another thing, but if they stick at 13 (on average) and Canon stays around 11 (again, on average), that seems like a pretty minor issue to me.
If you look at the two flagship models, the 1DX and D4, it's only a 1.4 stop difference. Is that really such a huge lead? Heck, if you look at the variation within Nikons own current production models there's almost as much difference within Nikon as there is between the worst models from both companies.
Heaven forbid someone use a D4 instead of a D800.
Of course all else being equal it's a clear choice, but I have a feeling it'll never come to that, at least not within my lifetime.

It's more than two stops compared to the 5D2 or 5D3 (vs D600/D800/D7100/etc. (the D4 doesn't use exmor so the difference isn't as large compared to that but the D4 is still better for DR for sure)) and that is just engineering DR, real world it is bigger since the 5D3/5D2 have some of the greater amounts of pattern banding and such junk, using the 6D at least you could get a bit closer to just the engineering difference between them.

Anyway yeah it's often that it is just 3 stops I'm missing. So eventually I would switch. There are a lot of Canon advantages though and it's a pain to switch so I haven't leaped right into a switch. I keep thinking Canon will catch up soon, but it is starting to take a while. Hopefully the 2014/2015 cameras do it. If not then I'm not sure, that would mean another 3-4 years on top of that and maybe even longer if even that round doesn't catch up. How long can you wait. At the very least I'd stop getting any more Canon stuff and pick up a Nikon and one general lens and if Nikon improves other stuff too.... Hopefully that patent means they do have something planned for the 2014/2015 cameras though.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

So I was looking at some resolution charts for lenses yesterday.

Man the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR 2 sucks, like, those corners are terrible. To think that Nikon shooters have been wasting their lives with glass like that for so many years, almost half a decade now, sheesh, and it's so obvious too. It's like they've all got their head in the sand or something. I mean, obviously whatever talent you have is being severely limited if you use that system.

And yet, do we see Nikon users, 10 times a day, 10 times an hour, beating the beejeezus out of Nikon on the Nikon forums for the wide open corner performance of this lens? Do we see Canon users dropping in on Nikon forums and chortling arrogantly, and constantly posting pics of comparative wide open corner shots?

Why not? Is someone, somewhere, having an attack of courtesy?

It is why I started this topic
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16691.0

People are fixated on sensor performance, and then mostly on DR.

I am not really sure if there are Nikon users in these forums only to bash troll and attack, If so it is rather sad.

Now we just need to learn how to spot and ignore them, If no one replies to their posts their fun will be over really fast , they might even leave for an other canon forum to try and get some satisfaction !

Maybe the reason is that they envy canon glass, ergonomics or other things.....
I like Nikons green tint on the top screen when it's dark, canon has a bit yellowish (altough mine is blue).
I like that they have better sensors....

I think is should go to a Nikon forum and constantly talk about the inferior lenses.....
Keep on going about the extremely poor buffer on the d7100, and that there is no Wildlife camera in the current line up (other than the d4, which has only 16mpix on FF) for wildlife shooters that care about raw+fps+buffer ...... there is ?

Most likely the only response you will get is : But... I have superior DR

Most of the people who mention DR in the Canon forums are Canon users who are simply making note of what each new sensor does and/or those simply hoping Canon will start producing sensors with more DR and less banding (with the 70D they seem to have finally do much better with banding, it tentatively appears and somewhat better with the 6D and 1DX, those two are almost as good as the old 1Ds3/40D in that regard). It's nothing about trolling or supposedly getting satisfaction or trying to rub things in people's faces or get kicks from getting a rise out people. You make it sound like it's sports fan bases clashing or something. Here and there a few trolls there may be, but it doesn't make a troll to simply report facts, all the facts, on each new release and/or to want more DR.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Its funny how everyone keeps bashing this camera because the sensor is only a small improvement for stills.
However i think this gamera is the biggest overal jump in the history of the xxD series.

In general only the sensor improved slowly with each model and addes a few MP and a few small features.

But this time they not only slightly improved the sensor they also added other stuff thats quite welcome like
-wifi to upload to facebook flickr or clouds or even use the camera remotely over wifi with your tablet!
-a better 19 point all cross focus system from the 7D
-a touch screen
-faster live view focus
-in camera HDR which might be fun and easy
-better viewfinder coverage
-hybrid autofocus for video
-a stunning 7 fps rather then 5.3 which launched this camera into a budged sports camera
-decicated focus mode button that lets you choose focus mode while shooting and much more button layout optimisations life movie button.


so in reality this camera is a massive upgrade. and the few samples ive seen also show that the black levels and noise preformance is really visible when compared to the 7d which for its price now is the direct competitor.

true and people have said so on other threads, but this thread was titled DxO sensor score though so what do you expect?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what that 3 stop of extra DR can mean (5D3 on top, D800 on the bottom):

All this really proves that even two of the best cameras currently made are each capable of producing suboptimal images when used incorrectly.

It isn't that the 5D III was used incorrectly. Fred Miranda was the one who did that review, and he is a respectable authority on such matters. The original sample images were shot to keep the whites from blowing in a high DR scene...and this, quite plain and simply, is indeed the result when you lift the shadows to compensate. There isn't any question that Canon has issues with their low ISO DR. It has been blotchy and banded for well over five years now, and it is Canon's weakest point.

Given DXO's review of the 70D, it's clear they have not put any effort into improving sensor IQ. Canon's focus is clearly different, and the weight of their focus has clearly shifted heavily towards video. I was hoping to see a better DR improvement for the 70D, and these results are rather disheartening. I'm a stills photographer, and I use my DSLR for still photographs. Quite frankly, I would really like to see Canon invest some of their huge cash flow into improving their products for their primary intended purpose, and not some secondary "sometimes convenient" purpose like video.

The Magic Lantern crew proved that Canon's sensors are capable of capturing the full 14 stops of dynamic range allowed by a 14-bit ADC...I think its high time Canon stopped their focus in video and returned their focus to EVERY aspect of IQ, including factors based on the sensor. I've argued in the past that there are other factors that affect IQ, such as AF system, but Canon has already perfected those technologies. Fred Miranda's comparison of the 5DIII and D800 is an excellent demonstration of why Canon should finally shift their focus back towards improving still photography IQ. I don't even think the problem is in the sensor, either...I think its in the ADC...and Canon pretty much whips up a new version of that every major release cycle anyway...so there shouldn't be any reason they couldn't invest some serious R&D into solving their low ISO IQ problem.

No more clever arguments from me about why Canon's products are good. They are, but that isn't the point any longer. I truly hope to see something significant on the sensor/ADC IQ front with the 7D II...otherwise, the 5D III will probably be my last Canon DSLR purchase until they stop focusing on secondary video functionality and refocus on the primary purpose of a DSLR: photography.

+1

The latest patent they have released (2013 for the newest variant, apparently they already had ones as far back as 2006 though) seem to make it clear they even have the designs to do it, or least largely so it appears, so they just need marketing to let the engineers start producing their DSLR sensor designs on Canon's more modern fabs or to build a new one instead of making the DSLR engineers have to work within the limitations of the very old 500nm Canon fab. But they have so far wanted to keep milking the old fab DSLR while all other other companies move on to new fabs for large sensors. (someone claimed they heard that Canon had shifted some of the newest P&S models to the older fab and speculated Canon had finally decided to use the 180nm fab for DSLRs now. Who knows. Just a rumor.)

I do have to say I do love the 5D3 video abilities though now that they have been unlocked by Magic Lantern. It's pretty astonishing. I don't think that really had anything to do with not getting better stills quality though (maybe costs it a touch in the MP count but then again it also got it to a very nice 6fps by staying lower, although I suppose they could've maybe fit in two digic since the 7D could fit two, but whatever)).

The new liveview AF for the 70D does sound it took quite a lot of resources up. It is very cool though. All the same if it was better sensor for IQ vs that I'd have takne the better sensor and then done this new AF later. For the 70D market perhaps the AF matters more. But in the end I think it's probably mostly just that marketing wanted them to keep milking the old 500nm line which probably meant there wasn't much the sensor engineers could really do.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

- Nikon seems to be much more logical to use than canon. The comands on Nikon are much easier to learn.

Hmmm. I remember a few years back two people at the paper didnt have any equipment with them and then suddenly something needed to get covered (an event right next to the paper's office which they just happened to be walking past) and the paper only had two bodies left that were not checked out, both Nikon. And by the time either of the Canon users figured out how to even set a few basic things like ISO speed the event was over and they came back with zero pictures!! What kind of a tangled UI makes such a ridiculous thing even possible? And yet when I hand my Canon to a Nikon user they can get the basics going in seconds. IMO Canon UI is way better and way more intuitive. Even the most basic settings on Nikon are buried away who knows where.
I think is more that you used Nikon for so many years that it seems to make sense.

Of course UI is a very personally thing (but again I bet if you took say a bunch of Leica users or something, ones who had never touched a Canon or Nikon in their life, and put a Canon and a Nikon body in front of them, I bet well over 50%, I bet like 85% if not 90% or 99% ;D get the Canon camera working at a pretty advanced level without a manual on hand faster; of course in the end maybe a good number would prefer the Nikon UI anyway but that is individual).

 

[garyknrd]

Looks like Canon is going to announce two new EOS M body's. If it has the Same sensor as the 70D?
I would love to have a small camera with that AF technology. Perfect for travel.
If it is affordable?

 

[jrista]

I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what that 3 stop of extra DR can mean (5D3 on top, D800 on the bottom):

All this really proves that even two of the best cameras currently made are each capable of producing suboptimal images when used incorrectly.

It isn't that the 5D III was used incorrectly. Fred Miranda was the one who did that review, and he is a respectable authority on such matters. The original sample images were shot to keep the whites from blowing in a high DR scene...and this, quite plain and simply, is indeed the result when you lift the shadows to compensate. There isn't any question that Canon has issues with their low ISO DR. It has been blotchy and banded for well over five years now, and it is Canon's weakest point.

Given DXO's review of the 70D, it's clear they have not put any effort into improving sensor IQ. Canon's focus is clearly different, and the weight of their focus has clearly shifted heavily towards video. I was hoping to see a better DR improvement for the 70D, and these results are rather disheartening. I'm a stills photographer, and I use my DSLR for still photographs. Quite frankly, I would really like to see Canon invest some of their huge cash flow into improving their products for their primary intended purpose, and not some secondary "sometimes convenient" purpose like video.

The Magic Lantern crew proved that Canon's sensors are capable of capturing the full 14 stops of dynamic range allowed by a 14-bit ADC...I think its high time Canon stopped their focus in video and returned their focus to EVERY aspect of IQ, including factors based on the sensor. I've argued in the past that there are other factors that affect IQ, such as AF system, but Canon has already perfected those technologies. Fred Miranda's comparison of the 5DIII and D800 is an excellent demonstration of why Canon should finally shift their focus back towards improving still photography IQ. I don't even think the problem is in the sensor, either...I think its in the ADC...and Canon pretty much whips up a new version of that every major release cycle anyway...so there shouldn't be any reason they couldn't invest some serious R&D into solving their low ISO IQ problem.

No more clever arguments from me about why Canon's products are good. They are, but that isn't the point any longer. I truly hope to see something significant on the sensor/ADC IQ front with the 7D II...otherwise, the 5D III will probably be my last Canon DSLR purchase until they stop focusing on secondary video functionality and refocus on the primary purpose of a DSLR: photography.

+1

The latest patent they have released (2013 for the newest variant, apparently they already had ones as far back as 2006 though) seem to make it clear they even have the designs to do it, or least largely so it appears, so they just need marketing to let the engineers start producing their DSLR sensor designs on Canon's more modern fabs or to build a new one instead of making the DSLR engineers have to work within the limitations of the very old 500nm Canon fab. But they have so far wanted to keep milking the old fab DSLR while all other other companies move on to new fabs for large sensors. (someone claimed they heard that Canon had shifted some of the newest P&S models to the older fab and speculated Canon had finally decided to use the 180nm fab for DSLRs now. Who knows. Just a rumor.)

I do have to say I do love the 5D3 video abilities though now that they have been unlocked by Magic Lantern. It's pretty astonishing. I don't think that really had anything to do with not getting better stills quality though (maybe costs it a touch in the MP count but then again it also got it to a very nice 6fps by staying lower, although I suppose they could've maybe fit in two digic since the 7D could fit two, but whatever)).

The new liveview AF for the 70D does sound it took quite a lot of resources up. It is very cool though. All the same if it was better sensor for IQ vs that I'd have takne the better sensor and then done this new AF later. For the 70D market perhaps the AF matters more. But in the end I think it's probably mostly just that marketing wanted them to keep milking the old 500nm line which probably meant there wasn't much the sensor engineers could really do.

I do hope Canon moves to 180nm soon. They certainly have the capability of building a 180nm fab, and they are on solid financial footing...its not like they would need to go billions into debt like Sony did in order to move to a new fab line.

If the marketing department really has that much control at Canon, then something is really wrong. Marketing shouldn't have a say in what technological developments a company invests in and deploys...marketing should simply sell what the technical departments of a company develop. So, I've never really bought the argument that marketing controls what Canon does. If there is some concrete information about who controls what at Canon that indicates their marketing department(s) have that much direct control, then maybe that is something.

For whatever reason, Canon has gone full-bore on video, and for years now. Ever since the 5D II hit the streets with video, it seems Canon thinks that is the path to financial glory. Sadly, it seems to have consumed them entirely, to the detriment of the original purpose of a "camera": to take still photographs. I think Canon has taken it about as far as it can go though, or almost. With full-sensor FPPDAF, I don't really know what else Canon can do other than maybe tie in the metering even more, include even more advanced face detection, and maybe go to quad-split pixel designs for both horizontal and vertical phase detection. After that...what else could Canon possibly invent in the video arena for their DSLRs that would actually be meaningful and competitive?

I just hope the 7D II brings some significant IQ improvements to the table. Across the board...low ISO DR, high ISO SNR/noise, increased resolution, higher frame rate, better AF. If nothing more than to show their customers that when the next generation of FF finally hits, it won't just be a tweaked 61pt AF system and the same old 12 stops of DR.