Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?

[Sporgon]

These 5Ds must have been specially modified;

http://500px.com/photo/37646388/land-of-the-setting-sun-by-robert-bynum
http://500px.com/photo/37251814/cape-arago-orcas-by-robert-bynum
http://500px.com/photo/69529953/the-golden-triangle-by-sairam-sundaresan
http://500px.com/photo/73747351/walt-whitman-+-freedom-pier-by-darren-loprinzi
http://500px.com/photo/59451838/baladrar-by-pedro-josé-benlloch-nieto

the first 2 look like sharp line ND grads

Agree the 2nd one, in fact the Orca looks fake... Probably cause with a long exposure unless they weren't moving it would be blurred.

On the first one, had you used a grad, then they would have had to clean up the rocks, I could not see stepped tonal change in them...

I'm sure the Orca is fake ! Seriously these were just the first ones I came to, I'm not saying they are perfect by a long way.

But the point is, look at the exposure of the first one ! The data has been taken from the background (master) layer.

 

[Stu_bert]

....
This has NOTHING to do with DXO here, BTW. Just to be very clear. This has everything to do with WHAT PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE ACHIEVING IN REAL LIFEa with the D800. I posted actual real world, artistic photographic examples, not some lab test of a step wedge or a bunch of numbers on paper (things you guys are often ragging on me about) and you guys are STILL denying it. Well...I guess what they say is true. Denial is the most predictable of human behaviors...

I've been harping on about this for ages except that I use DxO as the measuring stick and you're using photos posted by people online. In both cases they amount to the same thing: Canon's sensor is a major issue.

And why are people still denying it? Because you and neuro have been long arguing that DxO's measurements are bad and so any discrepancy between the Nikon and Canon cameras is also flawed. But now you've stumbled across more pictures from real life photographers that show that whilst DxO numbers may leave something to desire, the difference they describe between the two brands is accurate.

You've made your bed in arguing that I (and anyone else) is an idiot for not thinking Canon's sensors are good enough. Use HDR, use better technique, real world doesn't need that many stops because of screen/print issues. Blah blah blah. On and on the two of you have argued about how Nikon's advantage isn't real.

And now you've woken up and discovered that the song you sang has put all of those around you to sleep and they don't want to wake up. Why should anyone feel sorry for you about facing denial from others posting here?

Maybe you'd like to print those words out on paper - or write them down - and post a video of you eating that paper :-D

I'm not sure everyone is denying it. I think it needs to be put in perspective that it is not necessarily a major issue, it does not mean Canon is a dinosaur ready for extinction, and that those people who use Canon are not 2nd class citizens.

I do not dispute that Nikon bodies have more DR and edit latitude. I completely understand Jon's frustration and agree with those that state post processing is more effort inside when you should be outside. I, like many others have experienced the read noise issue, and as I said above you try to work around it. But, I personally take a lot of landscapes in the so called blue hour or twilight. I prefer the look. I also have sunset / sunrise shots but not every shot I take I want to show the complete tonal range. Sometimes I want to direct the viewer to a specific part. DR is a tool that I use in my shots. I often darken areas in a shot with less DR than a Canon sensor can handle exactly because I don't want the full range.

As I said, we need to keep it in perspective.... No dispute Nikon / Sony has the lead. No issue that there are people here who have either both, or have jumped completely to Nikon (curious as to why they are still here, but hey it's free ). People are free to chose, free to move, free to discuss. If we could leave the hyperbole's behind no matter which camp you are in

 

[Stu_bert]

These 5Ds must have been specially modified;

http://500px.com/photo/37646388/land-of-the-setting-sun-by-robert-bynum
http://500px.com/photo/37251814/cape-arago-orcas-by-robert-bynum
http://500px.com/photo/69529953/the-golden-triangle-by-sairam-sundaresan
http://500px.com/photo/73747351/walt-whitman-+-freedom-pier-by-darren-loprinzi
http://500px.com/photo/59451838/baladrar-by-pedro-josé-benlloch-nieto

the first 2 look like sharp line ND grads

Agree the 2nd one, in fact the Orca looks fake... Probably cause with a long exposure unless they weren't moving it would be blurred.

On the first one, had you used a grad, then they would have had to clean up the rocks, I could not see stepped tonal change in them...

I'm sure the Orca is fake ! Seriously these were just the first ones I came to, I'm not saying they are perfect by a long way.

But the point is, look at the exposure of the first one ! The data has been taken from the background (master) layer.

Your eyes are better trained than mine. I'm looking on an iPad mini, I can see boosted colours in the background, a tone curve, but I'm not sure I can see anything else. And I mean the first part in a non-sarcastic, offensive manner- I don't see anything really "out"...

 

[Don Haines]

Three years ago I was in Narita Airport (on the way to Beijing), and I saw 8 Nikon cameras but only 3 Canon cameras. So, Nikon has been ahead in Japan for at least three years.

interesting.....

I was at a craft show yesterday and saw three Nikons and only one Canon. It appears that Nikon has also captured the sheep and wool segment of the DSLR market.

I am sure that both of our observations are statistically significant

 

[Loswr]

...Canon's sensor is a major issue.

And why are people still denying it?

...I (and anyone else) is an idiot for not thinking Canon's sensors are good enough.

Here's the thing...Canon's sensors are good enough. Good enough to produce stunning images. Good enough to produce award-winning images. Good enough be part of the camera system chosen by a majority of photographers worldwide for the past 11 years.

The fact that they aren't good enough for you and a small number of other people certainly doesn't indicate that Canon's sensor is a 'major issue'. The only major issue is your mistaken perception of the severity of a couple stops of low ISO DR in terms of broad impact.

 

[fragilesi]

Three years ago I was in Narita Airport (on the way to Beijing), and I saw 8 Nikon cameras but only 3 Canon cameras. So, Nikon has been ahead in Japan for at least three years.

interesting.....

I was at a craft show yesterday and saw three Nikons and only one Canon. It appears that Nikon has also captured the sheep and wool segment of the DSLR market.

I am sure that both of our observations are statistically significant

To make it more fair though I checked in my camera bag and study and it's 3 Canons to nil. That has to mean Canon sensors are better right?

But, slightly more seriously, I'm making images with my 70d that I'm gaining great pleasure from. I know now that only using a crop with horror of horrors a Canon sensor inside means that my images are substandard but you know what I think I'm gradually learning to deal with it. It's tough but somehow I'm still managing to enjoy photography even with this dreadful kit that I'm using.

Maybe I need to join some kind of self help group.

 

[Don Haines]

Maybe I need to join some kind of self help group.

The self help group is a bad idea....

Bruce: "Hello, my name is Bruce and I shoot with a Nikon D810"
Carol: "Hello, my name is Carol and I shoot with a Sony 7R"
Peter: "Hello, my name is Peter and I shoot with an Olympus Om-D EM1"
Me: "Hello, my name is Don and I shoot with a Canon 60D"
All: <GASP>
Me: "I also have an SX-50"
All: <silent and incredulous stares>
Me: "Why are you looking at me that way?"
Nancy: "GRAB YOUR TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS! "

 

[fragilesi]

Maybe I need to join some kind of self help group.

The self help group is a bad idea....

Bruce: "Hello, my name is Bruce and I shoot with a Nikon D810"
Carol: "Hello, my name is Carol and I shoot with a Sony 7R"
Peter: "Hello, my name is Peter and I shoot with an Olympus Om-D EM1"
Me: "Hello, my name is Don and I shoot with a Canon 60D"
All: <GASP>
Me: "I also have an SX-50"
All: <silent and incredulous stares>
Me: "Why are you looking at me that way?"
Nancy: "GRAB YOUR TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS! "

Burn the heretic ;D

 

[AcutancePhotography]

No issue that there are people here who have either both, or have jumped completely to Nikon (curious as to why they are still here, but hey it's free ).

Entertainment. There is always a "sporty" thread on canonrumors. ;D

 

[psolberg]

looks like a good update. I think a lot of the expectations from crazy rumors were way off (12 fps? please guys let's be realistic here). But overall a nice update if you're into cropped sensors.

Also worried about the "fine detail"...I really don't want them to start removing AA filters. That is just a dumb trend that photographers like simply because they do not understand the value of an AA filter, or the ease by which AA softening can be sharpened.

Any soft image can be sharpened. But the images that are sharpest in RAW without sharpening are going to take post processing much better.

I'm actually kind of shocked to see someone on a camera forum advocating soft images.

I'm not. He is advocating against messed up aliased images, not for soft images.

I hope Canon just get suckered into the Nikon/SONY fake hype over AA-less sensors.

i have to say the 810 images look not bad.
im not a nikon expert but i read the camera has no AA filter.

The audience of the 810 is nature, landscape and studio photographer. Patterns which cause AA can be controlled in the studio, and in nature with say landscape or plants, it really isn't an issue most times. so this is why AA-filter deletes will be the de-facto standard going forward just as high MP, real vision DR, and low ISO will be. Yes some of it is marketing, but the reality is that the AA filter has a noticeable penalty on EVERY image you take even when the image wasn't really affected by AA artifacts. Plenty of very high end medium format sensors have been produced without AA filters and ultimately we now understand AA filters do more harm than good at this point for many applications which demand the most detail possible. Off course to maximize the AA-filter delete you have to have proper technique, in particular with high resolution cameras. But at least now that the AA filter out of the way, you can start to really make technique the only thing in the way to the sharpest image possible.

This is off course not every camera, and not every situation. Yes, there will be times when an image has moire patterns due to the lack of AA filtering. Some software can correct color patterns very well, other images won't be so lucky. Ultimately you have to understand your work. If your 99% of your images are taking a hit because of the AA filter just for the 1% you may rescue from aliasing, then you're being a fool for worrying about aliasing. Conversely if your work doesn't demand the most detail and often shoot in aliasing inducing environments, yeah get something with an AA filter.

The D800/E experiment is fascinating in this regard. Nikon gave people a choice and even made the E more expensive. But ultimately it received such huge positive reaction from customers that they decided AA-less was the way forward. As it turns out, most people's fears are just fears not based on the reality of what they actually shoot, and moire wasn't as much of a problem due for most. Sometimes change is needed for people to overcome their fears and while I was on the AA-filter skeptic camp before, after trying out filters without it I can say AA filter is a pair of training wheels that need to come off. Ultimately the test is on whether you can go back to an AA-filter equipped camera after living without one? Answers will change but for my personal experience, and seems from market research Nikon's audience knows: no freaking way. I wouldn't shoot an AA-filtered camera again because it hurts more than helps for me. If I do, it will be because I legitimately had to, and so far, never have had to.

 

[Woody]

Very disappointing specs after so long a wait. IMO, minor evolutionary improvements.
There's no reason to think that this sensor can do any better at high iso than the 7D and that was the most important thing I wanted to see.

I'll wait and see. In a previous CR2 rumor (http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/06/new-sensor-tech-in-eos-7d-mark-ii-cr2/):

"We’re told to definitely expect new sensor technology to be introduced in the Canon EOS 7D Mark II. This tech will be used in all forthcoming Canon DSLRs."

If the above CR2 rumor is true, then the technology is probably something major. Hopefully, it's not some improved dual pixel AF with servo capability. DPAF without touch screen is useless to me.

 

[unfocused]

DPAF without touch screen is useless to me.

This is actually the one thing that still baffles me. Mind you, I really don't care because I almost never use live view.

But if these specifications are true, it does seem like they have made a number of improvements for video users and I can't imagine not offering a touch screen for video. But then, I'm not a video person, so maybe it makes sense to others.

 

[unfocused]

...Canon's sensor is a major issue.

And why are people still denying it?

...I (and anyone else) is an idiot for not thinking Canon's sensors are good enough.

Here's the thing...Canon's sensors are good enough. Good enough to produce stunning images. Good enough to produce award-winning images. Good enough be part of the camera system chosen by a majority of photographers worldwide for the past 11 years.

The fact that they aren't good enough for you and a small number of other people certainly doesn't indicate that Canon's sensor is a 'major issue'.

Well jrista is also now on that list. So it would seem that the list of people that it's not good enough is growing.

At this rate the list should grow to about 100 people within the decade.

 

[Lee Jay]

Very disappointing specs after so long a wait. IMO, minor evolutionary improvements.

That is how Canon operates. Look at their product development over the last 11 years and you'll see the same minor increments from one model to the next. If you're looking for revolutionary development then you've bought into the wrong camera system/brand.

Or, you can do what I have done - skip a bunch of generations.

I'm looking to buy the 7D replacement. Do you think I'll see an evolutionary or revolutionary improvement compared to the camera I'm replacing, the 20D?

 

[Loswr]

As it turns out, most people's fears are just fears not based on the reality of what they actually shoot, and moire wasn't as much of a problem due for most.

Still, I don't see substantial differences between D800 and D800E paired images after proper sharpening is applied.

Personally, I see moiré in bird feathers often enough despite the AA filter on my 1D X, not having an AA filter would be highly detrimental for me.

 

[Maiaibing]

That is how Canon operates. Look at their product development over the last 11 years and you'll see the same minor increments from one model to the next. If you're looking for revolutionary development then you've bought into the wrong camera system/brand.

???

Except that 5DII was a sensational camera - touted and hailed for months before its release - and the best selling FF DSLR so far...
[edited as further down someone correctly noticed that I forgot to write that in the first para in the original post]

Before that the original 5D was the first ever affordable FF camera. With a class leading sensor.

 

[yurophoto]

No Wifi? Booo I have the 70d with built in WiFi and use it every time I shoot. Love that feature, if they don't put it into the camera Ill be bummed. Everything else looks great tho.

 

[mackguyver]

As it turns out, most people's fears are just fears not based on the reality of what they actually shoot, and moire wasn't as much of a problem due for most.

Still, I don't see substantial differences between D800 and D800E paired images after proper sharpening is applied.

Personally, I see moiré in bird feathers often enough despite the AA filter on my 1D X, not having an AA filter would be highly detrimental for me.

Come on Neuro, you know that you can see the difference at optimal aperture, welded to a 200lb tripod, in a studio, with lights cranked up - well at least at 200% magnification it's there and might be seen in massive prints

Personally, I was hoping for more from the D800E, but even on Nikon's D800/E website page, it's hard to see much difference in the rocks & moss.

Also, I have the same issue with my feathers in photos and appreciate the moire filter in DxO which I just used this weekend. It works quite well and is there thanks to the D800E, though I wonder how well it works on D800E files.

 

[Maiaibing]

source?

Your laziness hardly merits a response. Please read what I write:

1) Kakaku - that collects virtually all Japanese on-line sales into one portal.
2) I write about all SLR sales - not the sale of a single camera model

SLR stats on first page at Kakaku:
http://kakaku.com/camera/digital-slr-camera/

Follow Kakaku if you want to know whats hot and not in Japan!

 

[Lee Jay]

Just noticed some things (this is about high ISO):

70D is about 1/6th of a stop better than the 7D.
6D is about 1/2 stop better than the 70D per unit of sensor area.
(separately), the 6D is about 2/3 of a stop better than the 7D per unit of sensor area (consistent).

This means, it's possible just using the same level of performance as the 6D to do about 2/3 of a stop better at high ISO than the 7D. If they could do a little better (this 6D isn't brand new), maybe we could expect between 2/3 of a stop and 1 stop better performance at high ISO (in raw) from the 7D replacement.

That would be quite good, in my opinion, if they could achieve it.