A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information

[East Wind Photography]

I can't imagine Canon doesn't read to some degree forums like this one especially. If they don't then shame on them. The people here are the 80/20 rule. The 20% of their market that comprises 80% of the base avid user. I would like to believe that Canon is wise enough to know how to produce a camera properly for the given target market. With a 2000-2500 body, they should darn sure know what the criteria are. And I believe folks like me and jrista are a big chuck of that market. Give the pros a reason to keep those white lenses on the sidelines of Saints games and whatnot. If Canon gets too over zealous with pop culture features, the artists out there will continue their outward migration.

The 5D3 was a killer piece. I expect the 7DX to keep within that pattern and deliver strong fundamentals that will be a harbinger of the next gen FF pro bodies. They need a Sony/Nikon wrecker. If there is any wisdom left at Canon, that's precisely what they plan to deliver through 2015

A sony/nikon killer? Canon already has the market share. No, what they need is a 7D replacement in between the 5d3 and 1dx that will fulfill the gap lost when the 1Div was discontinued. No matter what the 7dx has spec wise you can be certain it will be much better than the old 7d. How much better we will have to wait and see.

Canon already has enough consumer cameras and marketing this to appeal to consumers would just be bad marketing.

 

[jrista]

My point, in all of my comments, is that a touch UI is not the thing Canon NEEDS to focus in, and it shouldn't be the one feature that people use to decide whether to guy the 7D II or not. If the 7D II hits the streets with the same old "classic" Canon sensor technology...that, in my honest opinion, is a MASSIVE FLUB!!

As I said, I don't care if they do include a touch UI, SO LONG as that does not mean they don't deliver a significantly improved sensor, significantly improved AF system, and also an improved metering system.

Focus on a touchscreen? Including a touchscreen as a causative factor in the exclusion of a totally redesigned sensor? The R&D resources needed to implement a touchscreen and touch UI, features which are present in several other dSLR models, are minimal, and are miniscule compared the R&D resources needed to develop a truly new sensor with dramatically improved IQ, which is a MAJOR investment. Are you actually suggesting that Canon should not implement a touchscreen in the 7DII because those miniscule resources would have been better spent on sensor R&D?

As for real photographers in the real world flocking to Nikon for the D800, the facts don't support that idea. Anecdotes ≠ data. I know one wedding photog who switched from the 5DII to the D800...because she got a great deal a Nikon package from another wedding photographer who was switching to the 5DIII. At the birding spots I frequent, there are more white lenses than black ones, and some of the black ones are now the Tamron 150-600 mounted on a Canon body.

Photography related internet forums are not representative of the buying public, at any level. The number of working pros who frequent such forums is pretty small. You mention DPR Forums, and that there is a 'strong and growing' group who are dissatisfied with Canon. Have you looked at the DPR 'gear list'? For 'Most Owned', Canon bodies outnumber Nikon by 65%. On the 'Most Wanted' list, Canon bodies outnumber Nikon, as do Sony and even Pentax.

However, if Canon pisses off their long term, loyal customers who have been using their DSLRs, in the same way with the same menu system and same old "archaic" buttons and dials for YEARS, by doing anything to upset the fundamental functionality of their DSLRs...how do you think THAT would affect their bottom line...or worse, their reputation?

Honestly, do you think that Canon would turn the back side of the 7DII into the EOS M, with a big touchscreen, a couple of buttons, and a little dial? Really? I don't get how including a touchscreen would 'upset the fundamental functionality' of a dSLR. Did Canon's addition of the Rate button to the 5DIII disrupt the workflow of those long term, loyal customers? (Hey, wait...maybe that's why they switched to Nikon in droves! : ) The touchscreen is a feature. If you don't want to use it, don't.

First, I never said anyone was flocking to the D800. I did say that I've been encountering more photographers who I know who have move to Nikon cameras (usually the D800, I know another guy who moved to the D7100, and I know a number of new astrophotographers who have actually chosen Nikon D5000 series cameras instead of Canon cameras, given news that a Nikon hacker cracked their black point clipping and restored the full signal, all while still maintaining RN below 6e-), and some who have moved to Pentax cameras. That isn't "flocking"...however it is very interesting to me. Don't put words in my mouth.

I am the first to say that portraiture and event photography isn't the largest group of photographers. I still believe that action photographers outnumber them ten to one at least. Doesn't change the fact that I used to see nothing but Canon cameras at the local state parks where I do most of my bird photography, and since I picked up my 5D III, in the couple dozen times I've been out, I haven't seen another Canon camera out there except my old friend David Stephens. Another bird photographer friend of mine, Kiomichi, was actually with Pentax, and he also moved to Nikon for better IQ. The amount of people that I personally know who are moving to different camera systems has been surprising...I figured some would, but it seems most are now. I've found that very interesting. And it's always the same thing...they want better IQ. These guys certainly aren't a statistical representation of all photographers...but it's a trend, it's a consistent change I've noticed in the photographers I know, many whom I've known for several years.

I use the word TREND here specifically. I certainly don't think it's affected Canons' bottom line. NOT YET. But it's a trend. This isn't an existing change that has suddenly occurred to Canon. It's the perceptual threat that COULD, and in my opinion likely WILL, change Canon as we move on into the future. It's as Maurauder stated, the "average joe" that is currently Canon's bread and butter don't give a flyin rat's ass about the fundamental technology. All they care about is what reviewers say the most good things about what camera or brand...and then they go buy that camera or brand. THAT is the perceptual issue Canon has, THAT is the perceptual threat Canon faces. I mean, I don't know how many comparison reviews have been posted on our forums alone recently, but it seems like every one of them favors the Sony Exmor-based camera over the Canon. Canon cameras still get solid points for their strengths, but it still seems like the final recommendations are no longer the one-sided "Get a Canon Camera" that they used to be. The field is split, competition is tough, and the leading factor in that competition is that one freakin sensor brand!

I know your stance on all this. I thought you were a little more open minded, and as much as I really DISLIKED ZigZagZoe (that guy was an arrogant prick), I think he found the one thing about you that is your greatest flaw, and he kept on pressing it: You are NOT open minded on this topic (and, you can be just as much an arrogant prick, too, when you choose to be!) To you, so long as Canon's bottom line keeps growing, so long as they sell more total units damn the consequences, your unwilling to see the potentially dangerous situation Canon is in.

No, nothing has happened yet. Nothing may happen at all. Perceptions have changed for many people, and future perceptions are ultimately going to be shaped by the people recommending cameras. I don't like DXO, I think they have some serious flaws in the core of their methodology...but people listen to them. I don't care much for a LOT of the YouTube video reviewers who have cropped up over the last several years...I think a lot of them are obviously biased, others seem to lack any kind of understanding of what it takes to perform an objective, unbiased review. But, the simple fact of the matter is...people listen to them. And, I'm happy to admit, as much as I like Canon...I STILL WANT BETTER IQ!!! I KNOW I can't be the only die-hard Canon fan who wants my next Canon camera to have the same IQ as any camera that uses a Sony Exmor...I want it all, I want phenomenal high ISO IQ, and I want phenomenal low ISO IQ. I want a FLAT read noise curve, both for my terrestrial photography but even more so, for my astrophotography. I WANT BETTER IQ. I want faster frame rates for the 5D and 7D lines. I want better metering (I really want a full color RGB metering sensor that can detect the subject and perform better tracking...it's ok in the 7D and 5D III, so, so much better in the 1D X.) And I'm a Canon user!

So, as I've said...unless Canon really starts demonstrating that they can not just create new technology, but employ it in actual commercial products, and SOON...I honestly cannot help but wonder if they are going to become the next Kodak, or Nikon, or Microsoft, or Minolta, or name any one of a hundred companies that either did not see the winds of change and change tack to catch them, or that simply ignored the winds of change, and just sat on their laurels and did nothing to really, truly compete with game-changing innovation from their competitors.

I don't know if Canon is any of those things yet...we still need the 7D II, and probably the 5D IV (or whatever the next Canon DSLR is) to actually be released. But looking at the market landscape...knowing that so many of my photographer friends have moved from Canon to some other brand...hearing so many reviewers recommend cameras other than Canon...it all adds up to a bad smell. I think the 7D II is a critical release for them. I think they need to invest every single resource they have in improving their fundamentals. I honestly don't know exactly how much resources it would take to implement touch for the 7D II...however I'm sure it's more than minuscule. It's not just the hardware, it's the firmware implementation, the testing, that I believe takes up resources. I write software for a living. I've written software since I was eight years old for christ sake. If there is anything no company on earth understands, it's how much time it REALLY takes to design, implement, test, refine/debug, and release software. Most companies think they can crank out some complex new web site product for their customers in a month or two, and executives are always surprised when it takes five times longer and ten times the budget to actually accommodate all their ideas and features and deal with all the quality assurance loops and the whole nine yards of implementing a stable, reliable piece of software.

So yes, I think that Canon could be using up a meaningful amount of resources by implementing a fully functioning touch UI for a professional grade device that has TONS more features than an EOS-M. I do not think that the amount of resources necessary to implement touch is on the same scale as developing new sensor technology...however developing new sensor technology permeates throughout the entirety of Canon's imaging enterprise, and is a FUNDAMENTAL aspect of their photographic tools, one that has a critical impact to IQ, just like AF, metering, frame rate, etc. I'm not necessarily saying Canon should move touch screen resources to sensors. However I do think touch screen resources could be put to better use on other firmware. Say, maybe, creating firmware for a new DIGIC that can produce ISO 400k that kicks the crap out of the A7s. OR maybe creating and improving firmware that improves their AF performance even more (having used the 5D III for months now, it still has some of that jitter that the 7D had with it's 19pt AF system...I REALLY think Canon needs to eliminate that problem. It's not as bad, but still present, and it's the single most annoying thing about Canon's DSLR usability.)

Anyway, I'm out. Got other things to do.

It seems you were wrong about that, too...

Heh, dude...you just never stop. I actually left, did stuff, and came back. I never said I was out permanently, just that I had shit to do.

 

[Straightshooter]

I can't imagine Canon doesn't read to some degree forums like this one especially.

YOU MUST BE JOKING!?! RIGHT....??

 

[Straightshooter]

I can't imagine Canon doesn't read to some degree forums like this one especially.

YOU MUST BE JOKING!?! RIGHT....??

UPDATE: I just came off the phone with Canon HQ in Tokyo, and they actually Do have A PERMANENT, FULLY STAFFED "SILLY INPUT" DEPARTMENT! I stand corrected... ;D

 

[jrista]

We are now WELL into the era of significantly improved DR.

Basically 12+ vs. 13+ stops. The DR meme is driven entirely by BS DxO tests that aren't even physically possible (i.e. claims of >14 stops from a 14-bit ADC).

Actually, it's more like 10.x stops vs. 13.x stops. I agree, DXO's PrintDR numbers are BS. Just use DXO's ScreenDR numbers, which are literal measurements taken directly from RAW, and a far more trustworthy number. Canon IS behind by about two stops. That is a FACTOR OF FOUR TIMES. DXO would have you believe it was closer to three stops, or EIGHT times...I agree, BS, and highly misleading. That doesn't change the fact that two stops is still a meaningful difference...always has been.

I think the 7D II needs to close that gap. I truly do. Back to the original point that started this now lengthy debate...I think Canon needs to focus on making the 7D II close the IQ gap, particularly the sensor IQ gap, between Canon cameras and their competitors cameras, far more than they need to focus on adding a touch UI. In that context, I think people are out of their minds to be bitching and moaning about the point made in the first post of this thread that said there would not be a touch UI or WiFi. It doesn't matter if touch or wifi make it into the camera or not, I honestly could care less, those are such trivial features...so long as they make it in there ALONGSIDE a radically improved sensor.

Alright, I got more stuff to do (astrophotography stuff this time). Later chums.

 

[dtaylor]

I can't imagine Canon doesn't read to some degree forums like this one especially.

YOU MUST BE JOKING!?! RIGHT....??

UPDATE: I just came off the phone with Canon HQ in Tokyo, and they actually Do have A PERMANENT, FULLY STAFFED "SILLY INPUT" DEPARTMENT! I stand corrected... ;D

A department flooded by DxO articles no doubt.

 

[Don Haines]

User interface design staff and sensor design staff are two very different groups with very different skills. One group is not going to be taking resources from the other.

At this point in time, it is a fairly trivial task to add a touchscreen to a camera. The hardware has already been designed and is in production. All the drivers have been designed and are in production. The user interface is 99 percent designed and is in production. All that remains is to play with some text and a couple fields.... It may actually be LESS work to put a touchscreen into the camera than to update an old design.....

 

[Loswr]

It doesn't matter if touch or wifi make it into the camera or not, I honestly could care less...

How often do I need to tell people that they are in the minority? :

I know your stance on all this. I thought you were a little more open minded...you can be just as much an arrogant prick, too, when you choose to be!...

I'm plenty open minded, I just happen to disagree with you. But you go right ahead and call me names, if you think that'll somehow help your case. The fact that you're seeing fewer Canon shooters means nothing, as I stated, anecdotes ≠ data. This perceptual problem you say Canon has, it's not reflected in the sales. Maybe that will change. More likely, Canon will release a 7DII/7DX that sells very well, even if it uses a sensor that still has less low ISO DR than SoNikon. People on the internet will complain about it, DxO will give it a low score, and customers will keep on not caring about that BS. For all that you claim people are unhappy with Canon and their sensors, and their 'bad reviews', looking at Amazon's Top Rated list, the first 8 places are Canon (including both the 6D and the 5DIII). How far down the list do you need to go to find a Nikon or Sony FF body? You can't, since there aren't any of either in the Top 100.

BTW, I'm still waiting to hear how putting a touchscreen in the 7DII will "upset the fundamental functionality" of that dSLR.

 

[dtaylor]

Actually, it's more like 10.x stops vs. 13.x stops.

Strange that those gray blocks outside of 10 stops are visible in a step wedge test. I wonder how that happens :

Just use DXO's ScreenDR numbers, which are literal measurements taken directly from RAW,

They may be literal measurements, but they are not of photographic dynamic range. DxO's model of how sensel measurements translate into DR is quite obviously flawed. And it is easy to demonstrate that their results are false with a Stouffer step wedge.

This same flaw in their model and thinking is no doubt the source of their demonstrably false belief that shrinking an image yields more DR.

Canon IS behind by about two stops.

They are behind 1 stop or less depending on the models being compared. (The 7D is ancient so that's not a fair comparison. Canon's current 18 MP chips are behind a stop.)

A while back someone on DPReview posted samples from a Nikon and a Canon to demonstrate the amazing DR of Sony Exmor. Canon fans challenged the comparison so he provided RAWs. Guess what? He did the same thing some of the online tests are doing: he turned off NR completely for the Canon but not for the Nikon!

Once the Canon file was intelligently processed the difference was minor. The Nikon file did have a bit more detail and less noise in the shadows. Turning NR off didn't even affect that very much (kudos Sony). But the Canon file had plenty of detail to work with, and the noise was not over bearing with intelligent application of NR. In a large print it would have been hard to tell them apart. Even the guy who opened the thread had to back peddle.

These were FF models, 5D3 and D800 if I remember correctly.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

We are now WELL into the era of significantly improved DR.

Basically 12+ vs. 13+ stops. The DR meme is driven entirely by BS DxO tests that aren't even physically possible (i.e. claims of >14 stops from a 14-bit ADC).

Actually, it's more like 10.x stops vs. 13.x stops. I agree, DXO's PrintDR numbers are BS. Just use DXO's ScreenDR numbers, which are literal measurements taken directly from RAW, and a far more trustworthy number. Canon IS behind by about two stops. That is a FACTOR OF FOUR TIMES. DXO would have you believe it was closer to three stops, or EIGHT times...I agree, BS, and highly misleading. That doesn't change the fact that two stops is still a meaningful difference...always has been.

once again, wrong wrong wrong, which is so bizarre because then you flip around and say that photosite density doesn't matter for noise and only sensor size does!!!! that is like saying 1+1=2 and no 1+1 does not equal 2 at the same time.

When you want to compare cameras the PrintDR measurement makes sense since it normalizes for photosite size difference and compares noise at the same scale between sensors having different densities, ScreenDR sure that tells you what the difference is at 100% view and what you can get if you use the full resolution, but it is not a fair way to compare since it penalizes cameras the more MP they have and it can lead you to think that a very high MP camera with amazing sensor and readout tech might give worse images than one with terrible sensor and other tech but very, very few MP, when if you compared them fairly, at the same scale, the one that measured worse on ScreenDR might actually give a much better result.

And to the other guy they normalize to 8MP so if a camera has a lot more than 8MP it can end up with more than the number of bits the file has per pixel. Sure if you want to get what you can out of the each original element in the file you can't get more than the 12bits or 10bits or 14bits or 16bits or whatever for the particular camera, but you don't care about that when comparing you just want to compare them at the same scale. If you compare the high MP camera to the low MP camera and want to see how it does at the same scale you need to first filter out all of the ultra high frequency noise and average it to a lower frequency scale and them compare that noise which now maxes to the same highest frequency the lower MP cam has. Then you can compare fairly between the two cameras. Now if you want to know if camera B will do better than A if you use camera B at full res then yeah use ScreenDR but don't forget that even if it then does worse by those numbers that doesn't mean it is a worse sensor since if you compare them at the same scale it might well do much better. So you get the choice higher res but perhaps worse noise or same res but perhaps much better noise.

 

[dtaylor]

How often do I need to tell people that they are in the minority? :

I'm not sure, but I believe it involves an exponent.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

We are now WELL into the era of significantly improved DR.

Basically 12+ vs. 13+ stops. The DR meme is driven entirely by BS DxO tests that aren't even physically possible (i.e. claims of >14 stops from a 14-bit ADC).

Actually, it's more like 10.x stops vs. 13.x stops. I agree, DXO's PrintDR numbers are BS. Just use DXO's ScreenDR numbers, which are literal measurements taken directly from RAW, and a far more trustworthy number. Canon IS behind by about two stops. That is a FACTOR OF FOUR TIMES. DXO would have you believe it was closer to three stops, or EIGHT times...I agree, BS, and highly misleading. That doesn't change the fact that two stops is still a meaningful difference...always has been.

once again, wrong wrong wrong, which is so bizarre because then you flip around and say that photosite density doesn't matter for noise and only sensor size does!!!! that is like saying 1+1=2 and no 1+1 does not equal 2 at the same time.

When you want to compare cameras the PrintDR measurement makes sense since it normalizes for photosite size difference and compares noise at the same scale between sensors having different densities, ScreenDR sure that tells you what the difference is at 100% view and what you can get if you use the full resolution, but it is not a fair way to compare since it penalizes cameras the more MP they have and it can lead you to think that a very high MP camera with amazing sensor and readout tech might give worse images than one with terrible sensor and other tech but very, very few MP, when if you compared them fairly, at the same scale, the one that measured worse on ScreenDR might actually give a much better result.

And to the other guy they normalize to 8MP so if a camera has a lot more than 8MP it can end up with more than the number of bits the file has per pixel. Sure if you want to get what you can out of the each original element in the file you can't get more than the 12bits or 10bits or 14bits or 16bits or whatever for the particular camera, but you don't care about that when comparing you just want to compare them at the same scale. If you compare the high MP camera to the low MP camera and want to see how it does at the same scale you need to first filter out all of the ultra high frequency noise and average it to a lower frequency scale and them compare that noise which now maxes to the same highest frequency the lower MP cam has. Then you can compare fairly between the two cameras. Now if you want to know if camera B will do better than A if you use camera B at full res then yeah use ScreenDR but don't forget that even if it then does worse by those numbers that doesn't mean it is a worse sensor since if you compare them at the same scale it might well do much better. So you get the choice higher res but perhaps worse noise or same res but perhaps much better noise.

(and since in reality you might use advanced NR and not this brute force method, if anything DxO might slightly hurt the higher MP cameras! and NOT at all give the higher MP cams such BS boost)

(I mean image this, cameras A and B are both FF, camera A delivers 36MP and uses D800 tech and camera B delivers 0.25MP and uses 10D sensor tech and now if you compare them by 100% view DR (i.e. ScreenDR) it says that camera B gives scores a much higher DR score and so you mean to tell me that you'd rather be using a FF camera based off of 10D sensor than one based off of D800 sensor tech when you are shooting a high DR scene?? Yeah maybe B delivers a 0.25MP image with better DR than a 0.25MP CROP from camera A would deliver but why are you comparing a 0.25MP CROP from camera A to the FF camera B? You mean to tell me 18x12" print from camera B would look better from camera B than an 18x12" print from camera A?? It wouldn't, but if you tried to compare just using the ScreenDR score that is what you might mistakenly think. But if you compare them using the so-called 'BS' PrintDR measurement it would right away tell you that the camera A print would work out better.)

 

[dtaylor]

And to the other guy they normalize to 8MP so if a camera has a lot more than 8MP it can end up with more than the number of bits the file has per pixel.

That is not photographic dynamic range.

I get what they're doing. Shrink the image. Noise and therefore black point are lower. "Oh my we have more dynamic range!"

No. Photographic dynamic range is the range over which you have captured detail. Shrinking an image does not create detail, it throws it away!

Simple thought experiment. Shoot 8x10 Velvia 50, a 6 stop (if that) film. Scan. Shrink down to the scanner dimensions for a 35mm piece of film. Did you magically turn Velvia into a 10 stop film? If you shot a step wedge, did more steps become a shade of gray rather then pure black or white?

Obviously not.

Makes me wonder if the guys responsible for this part of their test suite even own cameras.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Actually, it's more like 10.x stops vs. 13.x stops.

Strange that those gray blocks outside of 10 stops are visible in a step wedge test. I wonder how that happens :

Just use DXO's ScreenDR numbers, which are literal measurements taken directly from RAW,

They may be literal measurements, but they are not of photographic dynamic range. DxO's model of how sensel measurements translate into DR is quite obviously flawed. And it is easy to demonstrate that their results are false with a Stouffer step wedge.

This same flaw in their model and thinking is no doubt the source of their demonstrably false belief that shrinking an image yields more DR.

Canon IS behind by about two stops.

They are behind 1 stop or less depending on the models being compared. (The 7D is ancient so that's not a fair comparison. Canon's current 18 MP chips are behind a stop.)

A while back someone on DPReview posted samples from a Nikon and a Canon to demonstrate the amazing DR of Sony Exmor. Canon fans challenged the comparison so he provided RAWs. Guess what? He did the same thing some of the online tests are doing: he turned off NR completely for the Canon but not for the Nikon!

Once the Canon file was intelligently processed the difference was minor. The Nikon file did have a bit more detail and less noise in the shadows. Turning NR off didn't even affect that very much (kudos Sony). But the Canon file had plenty of detail to work with, and the noise was not over bearing with intelligent application of NR. In a large print it would have been hard to tell them apart. Even the guy who opened the thread had to back peddle.

These were FF models, 5D3 and D800 if I remember correctly.

see my post above and see the crazy paradoxes you arrive it if you insist on comparing cameras using ScreenSNR and ScreenDR (unless of course you'd rather think a 0.25MP FF camera using 10D sensor tech is better than a 36MP FF camera using D800 tech or a 40MP camera using 5D3 tech)

and see Fred Miranda site where a long time Canon fan and site owner compared 5D3 and D800 and found the same large difference and went out and bought an A7D supplement his 5D3

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

And to the other guy they normalize to 8MP so if a camera has a lot more than 8MP it can end up with more than the number of bits the file has per pixel.

That is not photographic dynamic range.

I get what they're doing. Shrink the image. Noise and therefore black point are lower. "Oh my we have more dynamic range!"

No. Photographic dynamic range is the range over which you have captured detail. Shrinking an image does not create detail, it throws it away!

Simple thought experiment. Shoot 8x10 Velvia 50, a 6 stop (if that) film. Scan. Shrink down to the scanner dimensions for a 35mm piece of film. Did you magically turn Velvia into a 10 stop film? If you shot a step wedge, did more steps become a shade of gray rather then pure black or white?

Obviously not.

Makes me wonder if the guys responsible for this part of their test suite even own cameras.

If you shrink it down to 35mm film size you are also shrinking everything about it down and all the grain and noise and details become much smaller and if you then find the distance that is the smallest that the 35mm film was resolving and then avg all the little stuff on the shrunken 8x10" frame over that smallest scale the 35mm film was resolving then you get a cleaner signal at that scale. Now yes you get less detail too so you don't get any magic compared to the original 8x10" but you can now compare fairly to the 35mm if you are talking DR and SNR.

Imagine this, make a contact print from an 8x10" film and a 35mm film both using the same film stock and the bice big 8x10" contact print you can see a ton more detail than from the 35" but yeah you see the noise kinda noise and DR. But then use an enlarger in reverse to contact print the 8x10" film to cover a 35mm area of the paper and stand a distance so you just make out the smallest details that the 35mm film contact print made and then you'd see the same details from the 8x10" shrunken to 35mm contact print but less noise than in the one from the 35mm film.

 

[Loswr]

Now if you want to know if camera B will do better than A if you use camera B at full res then yeah use ScreenDR

Say, for example...if you're shooting RAW? Some time back, I asked someone (you?) to point out a RAW converter that operates on downscaled images. I'm still waiting...

BTW, last time I checked DxO had swapped the Screen and Print DR values/plots for the D810.

 

[Loswr]

Simple thought experiment. Shoot 8x10 Velvia 50, a 6 stop (if that) film. Scan. Shrink down to the scanner dimensions for a 35mm piece of film. Did you magically turn Velvia into a 10 stop film? If you shot a step wedge, did more steps become a shade of gray rather then pure black or white?

If you shrink it down to 35mm film size you are also shrinking everything about it down and all the grain and noise and details become much smaller and if you then find the distance that is the smallest that the 35mm film was resolving and then avg all the little stuff on the shrunken 8x10" frame over that smallest scale the 35mm film was resolving then you get a cleaner signal at that scale.

So, in other words...no, downscaling the image would not make more of the steps on the wedge fall within the DR when the picture was taken. Thanks for your definitive answer. :

 

[dtaylor]

If you shrink it down to 35mm film size you are also shrinking everything about it down and all the grain and noise and details become much smaller and if you then find the distance that is the smallest that the 35mm film was resolving and then avg all the little stuff on the shrunken 8x10" frame over that smallest scale the 35mm film was resolving then you get a cleaner signal at that scale.

You do not get more detail, therefore you do not get more photographic dynamic range. Blocked up shadows and highlights will still be blocked up. On a step wedge the same number of steps will be gray, black, and white.

and see Fred Miranda site where a long time Canon fan and site owner compared 5D3 and D800 and found the same large difference and went out and bought an A7D supplement his 5D3

I would rather see his RAW files. My bet is that the difference is not as dramatic as whatever processing led him to believe it was.

That's not saying I fault anyone for wanting an Exmor sensor. Heaven knows I've spent extra $$$ for small gains. And processing can be easier with Exmor. But Canon is not that far behind, and this DxO nonsense is out of hand.

 

[dtaylor]

So, in other words...no, downscaling the image would not make more of the steps on the wedge fall within the DR when the picture was taken. Thanks for your definitive answer. :

Now I'm not so sure Neuroanatomist. In scaling his answer down to one word the answer became bold. An increase in DR? ;D

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Now if you want to know if camera B will do better than A if you use camera B at full res then yeah use ScreenDR

Say, for example...if you're shooting RAW? Some time back, I asked someone (you?) to point out a RAW converter that operates on downscaled images. I'm still waiting...

Holy cow, I know you know better dude.

Nobody does that since for Bayer you run into complications and would have to at least do that step first and for foveon again why do it at that step? But you could, just have it downscale the foveon RAW data first and then do it.

But that tangent is besides the point as you well know, so stop being a troll. I know you are not that feeble-minded of a scientist so stop trying to trick people with your games.

Or dare try to explain to me why you think a 3x5" print from a 4MP FF camera using 10D tech would deliver a better results from a 36MP FF camera using D800 tech.

Or since you are such a Canon zealot, care to explain how a 4x6" print from Nikon's D700 should look superior to one from Canon's 5D3? (maybe the MP count difference is not quite enough to make the screensnr and screendr imply that would be the case, not sure off-hand, but if not then image the comparison a 4x6" print from a 2MP camera using D700 tech to one from a 1DX? Care to explain how the 2MP Nikon using D700 tech gives a better image in terms of DR and SNR than one from the 1DX???