Already bashing the 7d MkII because of the Samsung NXI?

[Keith_Reeder]

I am a photographer and not a videographer. After viewing the Chuck Westhall video I was not really inspired to want to upgrade my 7D. We seem to have waited a long time for the 7D2 and I was expecting more 'must have' features.

I'm honestly baffled by comments like this - what else could anyone possibly (reasonably) want from the 7D Mk II?

It's a uniquely capable camera, far and away the most feature-heavy APS-C body out there, bringing umpteen novel features to the APS-C market, and improvements to the 7D.

 

[Peerke]

canon and nikon are not the lonely leaders in camera technology anymore.

That would be unfortunate for them if being the leader in technology was their goal. But from a business standpoint, that's a nice to have. Sony's Betamax was the best consumer videocassette technology...until it's inability to compete in the market killed it.

Nope, Betamax was only the best outside Europe.
It was the V2000 system of Philips that was the best. At least here in Europe it was (I don't think it was released outside Europe). Much better than Betamax and for sure much better than VHS. You could record both sides (like the audio cassette) and the write protection were switchable levers in stead of breaking plastic. Last but not least the image quality was much better too. It killed it self because it was too late on the market and the Japaneese compitition didn't want to invest into the system (of course).

OT and not for Neuro.
Just enjoy. The 7DII will be a fantastic camera once it is out there. Just like the 7D was 5 years ago. If one likes an other brand better, fine, buy that one. I'm so tired of all the fanatics around the world, would it be religious or camera brand. :'(

 

[AvTvM]

I am a photographer and not a videographer. After viewing the Chuck Westhall video I was not really inspired to want to upgrade my 7D. We seem to have waited a long time for the 7D2 and I was expecting more 'must have' features.

I'm honestly baffled by comments like this - what else could anyone possibly (reasonably) want from the 7D Mk II?

It's a uniquely capable camera, far and away the most feature-heavy APS-C body out there, bringing umpteen novel features to the APS-C market, and improvements to the 7D.

Quite simple. A better sensor with significantly less read-noise. Visibly less noise and banding in Hi-ISO. Visibly more DR at all ISOs, including 100.

On the other hand, I do not care at all for 10 fps, don't need more than 5-6 fps. But I still want a fully sealed mg-alloy shell camera with a top-notch AF. Essentially I want a FF-sensored 5D IV as a mirrorless camera sized like Sony A7R, with Canon user interface and a sensor at least as good as the 36 MP Sony sensor ... at a price like the Sony A7R.

 

[Loswr]

canon and nikon are not the lonely leaders in camera technology anymore.

That would be unfortunate for them if being the leader in technology was their goal. But from a business standpoint, that's a nice to have. Sony's Betamax was the best consumer videocassette technology...until it's inability to compete in the market killed it.

Nope, Betamax was only the best outside Europe.
It was the V2000 system of Philips that was the best. At least here in Europe it was (I don't think it was released outside Europe). Much better than Betamax and for sure much better than VHS. You could record both sides (like the audio cassette) and the write protection were switchable levers in stead of breaking plastic. Last but not least the image quality was much better too. It killed it self because it was too late on the market and the Japaneese compitition didn't want to invest into the system (of course).

Thanks for the info!

That still supports the point - there were two other competing technologies that were better, but VHS still won that particular format battle.

 

[weixing]

The Samsung does 420MP/Sec.

The Samsung is also saving 12-bit files during continuous shooting vs. the full 14-bits in single shot mode.

So what?

You keep telling us that DR (and by extension 12bits vs 14bits) isn't important except to a small number of people so therefore this difference that you've highlighted is also relatively unimportant. Or do you wish to become one of your own DRones and insist that the extra bit-depth and thus DR is all of a sudden important?

Hi,
IMHO, when I buy a camera that have 14-bits RAW, I expect to have 14-bits RAW also when shooting at 15fps, so I'll be very mad if I buy this camera and found this to be true especially the Samsung specification didn't even specified that it's 12-bits RAW when shooting at 15fps...

So now the question is: Does the Samsung NX1 really shoot 15fps only at 12-bits RAW?? If yes and they didn't mentioned it, I think Samsung going to be in big problem when buyer find out because shooting at 15fps was the "WOW" feature and one of the selling point that Samsung keep mention it!

Have a nice day.

 

[Khalai]

The Samsung does 420MP/Sec.

The Samsung is also saving 12-bit files during continuous shooting vs. the full 14-bits in single shot mode.

So what?

You keep telling us that DR (and by extension 12bits vs 14bits) isn't important except to a small number of people so therefore this difference that you've highlighted is also relatively unimportant. Or do you wish to become one of your own DRones and insist that the extra bit-depth and thus DR is all of a sudden important?

Hi,
IMHO, when I buy a camera that have 14-bits RAW, I expect to have 14-bits RAW also when shooting at 15fps, so I'll be very mad if I buy this camera and found this to be true especially the Samsung specification didn't even specified that it's 12-bits RAW when shooting at 15fps...

So now the question is: Does the Samsung NX1 really shoot 15fps only at 12-bits RAW?? If yes and they didn't mentioned it, I think Samsung going to be in big problem when buyer find out because shooting at 15fps was the "WOW" feature and one of the selling point that Samsung keep mention it!

Have a nice day.

Quote from DPreview:

The sensor has 28 megapixels, which produces files 6480 x 4320 in size. The sensor allows for a max sensitivity of ISO 51,200 and it can produce 14-bit Raw files in normal shooting and 12-bit when shooting continuously. Given the high resolution of the camera, it may not come as a surprise that there's no OLPF (anti-aliasing filter) on the NX1.

DPreview NX1 Hands-on

 

[nerdo]

It has nothing to do with being late to the market, both Betamax and V2000 refused to release pornography on their systems. V2000 had perfect slow motion and freeze frames and play backwards, it would have been the biggest hit because porn is the reason why there was such a huge thing made out of the perfect freeze frame on VHS.

Same reason why the Laserdisc (another Philips invention / shared with Sony product) was also a failure and why the internet is such a massive succes: porn.

Give people what they want or they will walk away, sooner or later. If a product is a succes it does provide what people want no matter what you think about it.

canon and nikon are not the lonely leaders in camera technology anymore.

That would be unfortunate for them if being the leader in technology was their goal. But from a business standpoint, that's a nice to have. Sony's Betamax was the best consumer videocassette technology...until it's inability to compete in the market killed it.

Nope, Betamax was only the best outside Europe.
It was the V2000 system of Philips that was the best. At least here in Europe it was (I don't think it was released outside Europe). Much better than Betamax and for sure much better than VHS. You could record both sides (like the audio cassette) and the write protection were switchable levers in stead of breaking plastic. Last but not least the image quality was much better too. It killed it self because it was too late on the market and the Japaneese compitition didn't want to invest into the system (of course).

Thanks for the info!

That still supports the point - there were two other competing technologies that were better, but VHS still won that particular format battle.

 

[Ruined]

I don't mean this towards any person in particular, but quite frankly some of the mirrorless advocates are starting to resemble the used car salesman who will say anything to try to get you to buy!

No matter how many rational arguments are made demonstrating why mirrorless is inadequate for pros and unappealing for normal consumers, some mirrorless folk march on with the cause by trumpeting the very few benefits mirrorless has and ignoring the slew of negatives that you get with those benefits.

So, when a product like the Samsung comes along that looks good on paper, it doesn't even matter how it performs in real life. It could produce pictures that look like a $5 disposable camera from CVS. No matter, it has a specs sheet that they can copy and paste to carry on with their mirrorless crusade as others lose (or have lost) interest in the technology.

In fact, I'd wager some mirrorless advocates are more interested in the technology itself than the actual picture they are capturing. If you can't capture the most stunning picture in the world on even a 6D (or 7D2 if you need the reach for the shot) then quite simply you are doing it wrong, and should be more concerned with your photography skills than sensor noise. Yes, things like sensor noise can be improved and it will benefit a small percentage of specific scenarios, but quite frankly given the current sensor quality in Canon cameras offering best of class sensor performance (6D for FF and 7D2 for crop) there are other more important things to focus on.

The bottom line is that mirrorless will remain a niche at least in the USA. Professionals want the best quality and best ergonomics, while consumers want the best deal and best practicality. Mirrorless fits neither of those formulas, thus it is doomed to third tier niche status that may retain a devoted fanbase but will never make it beyond that. The very best scenario for mirrorless advocates is a hybrid camera (as an optional EVF mode to augment a traditional OVF viewfinder), but based on the anemic mirrorless sales it appears that will not be a necessary investment for any of the big players.

 

[Don Haines]

I don't mean this towards any person in particular, but quite frankly some of the mirrorless advocates are starting to resemble the used car salesman who will say anything to try to get you to buy!

No matter how many rational arguments are made demonstrating why mirrorless is inadequate for pros and unappealing for normal consumers, some mirrorless folk march on with the cause by trumpeting the very few benefits mirrorless has and ignoring the slew of negatives that you get with those benefits.

So, when a product like the Samsung comes along that looks good on paper, it doesn't even matter how it performs in real life. It could produce pictures that look like a $5 disposable camera from CVS. No matter, it has a specs sheet that they can copy and paste to carry on with their mirrorless crusade as others lose (or have lost) interest in the technology.

In fact, I'd wager some mirrorless advocates are more interested in the technology itself than the actual picture they are capturing. If you can't capture the most stunning picture in the world on even a 6D (or 7D2 if you need the reach for the shot) then quite simply you are doing it wrong, and should be more concerned with your photography skills than sensor noise. Yes, things like sensor noise can be improved and it will benefit a small percentage of specific scenarios, but quite frankly given the current sensor quality in Canon cameras offering best of class sensor performance (6D for FF and 7D2 for crop) there are other more important things to focus on.

The bottom line is that mirrorless will remain a niche at least in the USA. Professionals want the best quality and best ergonomics, while consumers want the best deal and best practicality. Mirrorless fits neither of those formulas, thus it is doomed to third tier niche status that may retain a devoted fanbase but will never make it beyond that. The very best scenario for mirrorless advocates is a hybrid camera (as an optional EVF mode to augment a traditional OVF viewfinder), but based on the anemic mirrorless sales it appears that will not be a necessary investment for any of the big players.

+!

Everything has it's plusses and it's minuses.... you have to look at both when doing a comparison..... and never forget that different people are going to weigh the various factors differently as people shoot a variety of subjects under a variety of conditions. There is no easy or universal answer to the question....

 

[Ruined]

...
The bottom line is that mirrorless will remain a niche at least in the USA. Professionals want the best quality and best ergonomics, while consumers want the best deal and best practicality. Mirrorless fits neither of those formulas, thus it is doomed to third tier niche status that may retain a devoted fanbase but will never make it beyond that. The very best scenario for mirrorless advocates is a hybrid camera (as an optional EVF mode to augment a traditional OVF viewfinder), but based on the anemic mirrorless sales it appears that will not be a necessary investment for any of the big players.

Let me put the situation to you differently.

If tomorrow Canon came out with a 5DIV and a EOS-MX, where both were full frame and using the same senor but the MX was mirrorless (with corresponding weight savings, etc), I'd buy the MX in a heart beat and never even consider the 5DIV. I'd also never buy another EF lens that was for non-mirrorless cameras.

I completely understand that. But you are by far the minority. Mirrorless is by no means new and even the overall best mirrorless system to date (arguable Sony A7/A7R) has failed to sell in big numbers. Also, I don't think there will need to be a new set of lenses for a full frame Canon mirrorless camera. Because of the physics behind full frame (unlike APS-C), outside of a few wide angle focal lengths you don't gain anything by reducing the flange focal distance. If Canon did make a 5DIV mirrorless equivalent, I am quite sure it would still use EF lenses because there is little point on fullframe otherwise; this is in contrast to APS-C where a different set of mirrorless lenses makes sense.

The size and weight differences are not inconsequential and if I think to the future then at some point I'm going to say "I'm sick of lugging around fat ass DSLR bodies and lenses when I can use something smaller and lighter." If I buy another DSLR it will either be the last or next to last DSLR that I ever buy.

Now maybe that's further into your future than you care to think about but not for me. In 30 or 40 years, what do you want to have hanging around YOUR neck?

You have very well describe the problems mirrorless faces:
1) Consumers sick of lugging around "fat ass DSLR bodies and lenses" are not going to be all that enthused to carry a smaller mirroless body but still have to lug around the same "fat ass" lenses nor are they interested in being stuck with a fixed 35mm prime as their only compact option. There is no getting around physics - just look at the Sony A7 lenses; the only lenses more compact than Canon EF are the 35mm and below. The Sony 50mm is actually significantly larger than the Canon EF equivalent and the 70-200 f/4 is not significantly different than the Canon EF equivalent. The lenses are more the issue than the camera with full frame mirrorless... Those consumers sick of lugging around a DSLR will buy a camera with an integrated superzoom lens or simply use there iPhone. But pros will not do that, which brings me to:

2) The "fat ass DSLR body" is actually a positive for professionals, not a negative. It's not much fun trying to handle a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS or 300mm f/2.8L IS on a body that does not give you sufficient grip for the camera lens. That is why battery grips are popular and Canon's top of the line 1DX is actually the largest of all - because pros need the grip to balance full frame lenses. As mirrorless offers no benefit to reducing the size of larger full frame lenses, the small body size becomes the problem rather than the solution. This is why Sony has not released a 70-200 f/2.8, it will be a nightmare to handle on the A7/A7S.

3) In summary, mirrorless is still too big for consumers who want to downsize, yet it is too small for professionals that need a meaty body (6D is about as small as practical) to handle their telephoto full frame lenses which are not getting any smaller with mirrorless due to physics. Thus it becomes a tough sell to either group, resulting in the poor sales we have seen.

 

[mb66energy]

...
The bottom line is that mirrorless will remain a niche at least in the USA. Professionals want the best quality and best ergonomics, while consumers want the best deal and best practicality. Mirrorless fits neither of those formulas, thus it is doomed to third tier niche status that may retain a devoted fanbase but will never make it beyond that. The very best scenario for mirrorless advocates is a hybrid camera (as an optional EVF mode to augment a traditional OVF viewfinder), but based on the anemic mirrorless sales it appears that will not be a necessary investment for any of the big players.

Let me put the situation to you differently.

If tomorrow Canon came out with a 5DIV and a EOS-MX, where both were full frame and using the same senor but the MX was mirrorless (with corresponding weight savings, etc), I'd buy the MX in a heart beat and never even consider the 5DIV. I'd also never buy another EF lens that was for non-mirrorless cameras.

The size and weight differences are not inconsequential and if I think to the future then at some point I'm going to say "I'm sick of lugging around fat ass DSLR bodies and lenses when I can use something smaller and lighter." If I buy another DSLR it will either be the last or next to last DSLR that I ever buy.

Now maybe that's further into your future than you care to think about but not for me. In 30 or 40 years, what do you want to have hanging around YOUR neck?

I think DSLR an mirrorless cams will coexist at least 2 decades as an offer of the large camera brands. The whole live is a large heap of compromises and sometimes there is no logical OR but an AND:

DSLR: Action, "looking throu cam to check subjects without power consumption", etc.
mirrorless: If lower weight is important, tripod work, etc.

 

[Ruined]

...
I completely understand that. But you are by far the minority.

Everyone gets older, even you will.

Ah yes, the ever popular evidence-unsupported "mirrorless is the future" argument

Wrong. With a smaller body, the distance from the lens to the sensor is wrong. That's why metabones, etc, adapters are all so thick and is why new lenses are being created.

Actually it's not wrong - that was Sony's choice because their existing lenses were unpopular so they might as well start from scratch, it does not have to be Canon's choice. Canon can maintain the flange distance yet still reduce camera size (such as reducing the height for sure, and possibly width) and it would be compatible with all EF lenses; it would operate much like a current Canon DSLR in live view mode, except without needing the extra height for the OVF. The camera would have similar height of the A7 with greater depth from front to back than the A7 but it is worth that depth tradeoff to be compatible with hundreds of popular EF lenses, and it would allow Canon to develop one lens for both systems. It would not be the smallest mirrorless camera but that is what the EOS-M line would be used for. It would be nonsensical from both a business standpoint and a consumer standpoint to develop a whole new set of FF lenses just to cater to mirrorless when maintaining the flange distance yet eliminating the OVF would result in a much smaller camera that will be compatible with all the legendary Canon EF lenses, especially since if Canon did this I'm sure niche mirrorless fans would drop the A7 like a hot potato! The problem is mirrorless is so niche even this easy score is not worth it business-wise.

You're forgetting that m4/3s is also mirrorless and both the cameras and lenses are much smaller and lighter. Image quality compromise? Not significant.

Maybe, but depending on usage for many professionals micro 4/3 or aps-c is insufficient or at the least undesirable (unless your shots are frequently reach limited). Again, it will be a very tough sell for professionals.

For consumers, even an APS-C or m4/3 based mirrorless system is still much larger (carrying around lenses/accessories) and more complex than a fixed lens superzoom or smartphone camera. Consumers like small, simple, cheap - if you argue that they could buy a mirrorless ILC and just use one lens all the time, a fixed lens superzoom would be much more appealing to that same consumer as it would be cheaper, less complex, and have a more flexible focal range. And this is mirrorless' quandary - too small for professionals and their full frame lenses, too large for consumers who don't want to carry around an ILC and lenses mirror or not.

 

[Loswr]

Strange because when people calculate MP/sec, it is generally fps * MP/f and the bit depth never comes into it.

You could calculate CM/w (cartons of milk per week), but if you want to compare milk consumption between households, you need to know the volume of the carton. Assuming that analogy is not too complex for you, are you suggesting that there's no difference in file size or data content between a 12-bit and a 14-bit RAW file?

FWIW, I agree that the NX-1 has great data throughput, and that it can make sense to sacrifice a couple of bits of data for a higher frame rate (in fact, the 1D X sacrifices far more than that to go from 12 to 14 fps). But none of that is relevant to the point I was making. You brought it up because you wanted to argue. Feel better now?

I'm kind of curious how many people enable the "14fps mode". Then again I imagine that all of the sports shooters that have no time for dealing with CR2 files do enable it.

I imagine if you understood the other limitations of the 14 fps mode on the 1D X, you'd understand why many sports shooters would not want to choose that option. But we already know that technical details aren't your forte.

 

[Jordan23]

The Samsung is also saving 12-bit files during continuous shooting vs. the full 14-bits in single shot mode.

Looks like the Canon 7D2 is just over half the speed of the Samsung NX1, which is an improvement on the 420MP/sec vs 200MP/sec where the Canon camera is under half the speed of the Samsung NX1.

Not quite, you have to take into account the actual file-sizes.
On the Nikon 810 there's a approx. 25% difference in file-size between 12bit and 14bit RAW-files.
We don't know much about 12bit on the NX1 yet, but let's assume it's approx. 25% smaller than the 14bit files. That gives 12bit RAW files of 21mb.

15fps X 21mb = 315 mb , which would been enough for a nice 11 fps with 14bits RAW.

The 14 fps/jpg on the 1DX is a feature, not a hidden "ugly" surprise.

 

[fragilesi]

The Samsung does 420MP/Sec.

The Samsung is also saving 12-bit files during continuous shooting vs. the full 14-bits in single shot mode.

So what?

You keep telling us that DR (and by extension 12bits vs 14bits) isn't important except to a small number of people so therefore this difference that you've highlighted is also relatively unimportant. Or do you wish to become one of your own DRones and insist that the extra bit-depth and thus DR is all of a sudden important?

Wasn't he just pointing out a fact? He didn't make anything out of it or (unlike your good self and other esteemed DRones suggest that it was significant).

 

[Jordan23]

But given that Canon's 1DX doesn't have more than 12 stops of DR and that stops of DR are bits then it even seems pointless for Canon to have 14bits of raw, don't you agree?

It's quite a lot of colour-information in those 2 bits, not just DR.

 

[FEBS]

would i buy the canon as wildlife action shooter? .. of course!

but for me the NX1 shows how far other companys have come.
and it shows that canon is imo far to conservativ.

for every feature, except maybe the AF, im sure you can find cameras that have better specs. thought not overall better.

canon and nikon are not the lonely leaders in camera technology anymore.

about the images... well as we see in the 7D MK2 thread that means not much.

I agree that you might find a camera for every point of the spec that is better then the 7D2. But what does that say? That Canon is conservative? NO. That only says that those other camera take a marketing decision to be better on a specific point then all the others, BUT they also make a lot of compromises for the other specs. Just point me a DSLR camera that has better overall spec then the 7D2 right now, for a action photographer? Because that's the target for Canon with this camera.

 

[Loswr]

Assuming that analogy is not too complex for you, are you suggesting that there's no difference in file size or data content between a 12-bit and a 14-bit RAW file?

Given that file size is generally proportional to megapixels, I don't see how that helps.

So you are suggesting that there's no difference in file size between a 12-bit and a 14-bit RAW file.

I haven't seen Samsung specs, but Nikon allows a choice between 12- and 14-bit, and the lower bit depth allows a deeper buffer in terms of number of shots.

Nikon D810 uncompressed RAW, 12-bit: 55.9 MB
Nikon D810 uncompressed RAW, 14-bit: 73.2 MB

That's a file size increase of ~30% going from 12- to 14-bit.

You really should stop trying to argue technical details, you succeed only in making yourself appear inept.

 

[FEBS]

I am a photographer and not a videographer. After viewing the Chuck Westhall video I was not really inspired to want to upgrade my 7D. We seem to have waited a long time for the 7D2 and I was expecting more 'must have' features.

I'm honestly baffled by comments like this - what else could anyone possibly (reasonably) want from the 7D Mk II?

It's a uniquely capable camera, far and away the most feature-heavy APS-C body out there, bringing umpteen novel features to the APS-C market, and improvements to the 7D.

Quite simple. A better sensor with significantly less read-noise. Visibly less noise and banding in Hi-ISO. Visibly more DR at all ISOs, including 100.

On the other hand, I do not care at all for 10 fps, don't need more than 5-6 fps. But I still want a fully sealed mg-alloy shell camera with a top-notch AF. Essentially I want a FF-sensored 5D IV as a mirrorless camera sized like Sony A7R, with Canon user interface and a sensor at least as good as the 36 MP Sony sensor ... at a price like the Sony A7R.

You simple don't get the point. The 7D2 is not for you in that case. You don't matter fps. You even tell that you would like a FF as a mirrorless. So why blaming the 7D2? It seems that the Sony A7 is your choice already. Please do tell Sony that they should incorporate a fully sealed mg-alloy shell with a top-notch AF for their A7R.

 

[dgatwood]

But given that Canon's 1DX doesn't have more than 12 stops of DR and that stops of DR are bits then it even seems pointless for Canon to have 14bits of raw, don't you agree?

It's quite a lot of colour-information in those 2 bits, not just DR.

AFAIK, each RAW pixel value is actually the value of a single-color subpixel. The physical location of that subpixel determines what color it is, based on what color filter is in front of that subpixel. So a 14-bit RAW pixel value is literally just a black-and-white (well, red-and-white or blue-and-white or green-and-white or whatever) value telling the amount of a single color.

BTW, where do you get 12 stops of DR? By my count, it would take 17 bits (well, slightly more than 16) to properly represent the full well capacity of the 1DX sensor at low ISO. That should mean that it has >16 stops of DR.