Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?

[PureClassA]

"I shoot Canon for the glass"

AMEN.

Better IQ with a sensor upgrade from the 70D is what I feel is a reasonable expectation for Canon's flagship APS-C format rig. I'm willing to bet that the most popular lens used in tandem (or at least of the top most popular, especially in the zoom category) is the 70-200IS Mk II or some earlier variant, which is one of Canon's crown jewels in the entire universe of pro glass. I know I use the hell outta mine.

Stepping up higher ISO performance was probably at the top of their to-do list when redesigning this camera, but anyone salivating over "near 5DIII" ISO performance is, I'm sorry, deluding themselves. It's still a limitation of physics of Crop vs. Full Frame. We have to be reasonable. That said, certainly there is still room to grow on a crop format and I trust Canon will answer this call after 5 years of stepped up tech advancements and whatnot.

All this debate is academically stimulating but once the camera hits with known variables, a whole new debate begins that renders this little more than playtime.

My sharpest and most used glass is my Sigma 35mm and 50mm ART 1.4s. I'd love to see them get notably more resolve on a new updated crop body, but they are no slouch now. Earlier someone opined about "waxy" 7D files. I don't know what that means. My 7D kills it for a crop, even when I was using an old 90mm Tamron Macro 172E (something like 3 generations ago of that lens).

Of course, when I'm shooting portraiture and artwork, i'm firing a 6D, which I also adore, but I can't reasonably compare that to crop.

I'm a Canon lover, but I'm also a realist. Canon needs to knock this out the park regardless of current market share. I don't want to watch Rome burn while Japan fiddles.

 

[crashpc]

It seems to compare new APS-C with 5D II sensor. They can make it there....

 

[David Hull]

neuroanatomist: I agree with what you wrote, but of course it will have some effect on Canon. For example I´m Canon guy. For last year I bought three Canon cams. But if they don´t deliver here, I´ll be forced to look elsewhere, that way I´ll stop buying their products. So it has effect. I hope they solve it, because I´d be very happy to buy another Canon product.

I didn't think I needed to spell it out explicitly, but the effect I am referring to is an effect on market share, not at an individual level. You may switch to another brand for more DR, that's not going to affect market share. Perhaps as you switch away from Canon, three other people switch to Canon for better AF for video and/or stills.

Not only that, but when he sells his stuff -- Canon gets another customer (or keeps one). This same argument was used when Sony came out with IBIS (for example) over on DPR there were huge numbers of posts bemoaning the imminent demise of Canon (and Nikon) if they didn't immediately adopt this new "game changing" technology, yet so far we haven't seen it happen (and indeed, Sony have moved from it in a number of their offerings).

To put your summary in a slightly different way: Canon would not be where they are if they weren't good at figuring out what their market wants.

 

[David Hull]

@jrista – You state that Canon's sensors haven't improved since before the 7D, and that all of their competitors' sensors have substantially improved, that Canon's customers have been demanding improved sensor IQ, and that Canon 'must respond'.

A small fraction of the market shoots RAW, a tiny fraction makes large prints, and an infinitesimally miniscule fraction even knows what a Stouffer step wedge is, let alone has one.

Small wonder this 'sensor IQ gap' has no impact on sales. The bottom line is that for the needs of the vast majority of dSLR buyers, the IQ delivered by Canon's current sensors is more than sufficient, and that's not likely to change any time soon.

But a fair percentage of buyers pay attention to online reviews. Neuro, I'm in nearly 100% agreement with you on your contention that sales tell the story. However, it's dangerous (as IBM, Intel and Microsoft discovered several times, and as Apple may soon discover) to assume that what worked in business for so long will continue indefinitely. It's a reasonable assumption that if the I.Q. gap gets wide enough, the popular press, review sites, and entities like Cons. Rep. will start to disregard Canon's whizzbang features and marketing prowess, and view Canon's lineup as unworthy of serious consideration. You're correct that this will not likely happen soon (e.g. in the next 2-3 years), but 5 years is not out of the question.

IBM, Intel and Microsoft may have had episodes where they badly misunderstood the market, but they were able to recover due to their deep pockets and a willingness to part with previous strategies. I believe Canon can do the same. Based on Canon's (corporate) track record, I'll bet they have the ability to deliver IQ equal to or exceeding what's on the market now, but they won't do so until market conditions force them. Eventually, as jrista points out, the market will force them.

One more thing: you should know by now that jrista is not a DRone. When he makes assertions he almost always has good reasons for them, and he's willing to talk things out and admit his errors. You may disagree with him, but try asking politely for citations rather than descend into name-calling.

Here is the problem with this thinking though: The concept of an "IQ Gap" is more hype than reality. Look at the reviews on DPR for example, they don't show much of an "IQ Gap" in fact for all practical purposes, none at all in their example images. This is why I call it hype, it is really "much ado about not much". Even those who try to demonstrate the so called "problem" (and we have seen this time and time again) have to resort to some extreme shadow lift test case to demonstrate their point with the resulting image being unusable for anything much beyond PI surveillance perhaps.

Your "IQ Gap", if it exists at all, exists over a very small subset of use cases (which no doubt are important to some, but clearly are NOT important to many).

 

[jrista]

One more thing: you should know by now that jrista is not a DRone. When he makes assertions he almost always has good reasons for them, and he's willing to talk things out and admit his errors. You may disagree with him, but try asking politely for citations rather than descend into name-calling.

Thanks for coming to my defense. I'll admit, maybe I'm being a bit too sensationalistic. We still need to see what the 7D II hits the streets with before we can really draw any concrete conclusions. I'm not particularly confident at this point, but maybe we will all still be WOWed...

That said, I'm not surprised by Neuro's name calling. @Neuro, to be quite frank, since your episodes of utterly childish schoolyard name calling and bullying with ZigZagZoe, a guy who certainly came on strong and took an immediate disliking to you (and whom I have zero respect for, as he is just as much a disgraceful schoolyard bully), I'm not surprised at all by your name calling. That seems to be what you resort to when you have no other solid argument to make. I've lost a lot of respect for you, thanks to those threads, and the fact that you are STILL resorting to name calling whenever someone tries to bring up DR.

I'll shut up about it after this. It's not doing any good, and I don't want to rial up the locals into another pointless battle. However, you should really check the attitude a bit. I can't be the only one who was rather horrified at your behavior with the whole ZigZag episode. I can't help but view you in a different light now...and it isn't a good light. Just...something to think about regarding how people perceive you. I understand now why CR forums are considered to be full of raging fanboys.... We all ARE raging fanboys! Raging enough to have the closest thing to a schoolyard fight between bullies as you can get online! I'm kind of ashamed to have been a part of that at all...maybe that's where part of my change of heart, change of stance, on Canon gear comes from now...I dunno.

Anyway...I don't know if Canon will lose out because they don't change their sensors. However, I do believe there are some strong parallels to be draw between Canon and many other tech companies that have failed or lost their competitive edge and market dominance (or simply missed the opportunity to expand into new markets) because they sat on technology and/or did not innovate. Canon innovates...it just does not seem as though their innovations are making their way into products. I most certainly do not believe Canon is an "evil" company, purposely withholding trivial features to keep customers "coming back for more in each future model" like LTRLI. I think they have their product lines segregated according to their business goals. But that's different than bringing new technology to market...especially in PRO-grade camera lines. I know the vast majority of Canon DSLR users are "green box" photographers...but, were talking about the 7D II here. This isn't an entry-level DSLR...it's a professional grade DSLR...something that has been hotly anticipated by a group of Canon photographers that are certainly more savvy than "green box" shooters. A group that should overwhelmingly shoot RAW and appreciate a better sensor.

As someone who DOES like Canon gear, particularly their lenses, which I've invested many tens of thousands of dollars into...it's a concerning realization, that Canon may be in a similar position as Nokia, Kodak, Microsoft, and so many others when old markets shifted and new markets emerged. I don't want to be sitting on a $13,000 lens five years from now that is still only capable of being attached to a DSLR that has the same sensor IQ of today, which is largely the same sensor IQ of five years ago. I bought that lens with the expectation that it would survive through a half dozen camera generations, each one better than the last, until I'm in my late 40's or early 50's. I'm not confident that I'll be attaching that lens to a camera that performs wildly differently then than I do today. I'll just sit back and watch now. Hopefully Canon will do something about it soon...if not, well, I personally am opening up my options for low ISO IQ. I'm tired of waiting for Canon to do something about it...and while I still think Nikon is a schizophrenic company, I'd rather buy a D810 and have a REAL RAW image format than buy a Sony A7r and have to deal with a gimped out lossy-compressed "RAW" format. Time to stop waiting for Canon to do something...I gotta do what I gotta do for my photography. If that means Neuro labels me a DRone, well...so be it. Not surprising there.

 

[SwampYankee]

I think the concern is not so much the 7DII, but that Canon does not seem to have any new sensor technology on the horizon. Canon 1DX and 5DII, III owners are concerned that the high resolution sensor market has been conceded to Sony. The concern goes beyond the camera body. I have not bought a new lens in a year and I will not buy another lens for my 5DIII until I know that my investment in lenses will be worthwhile one in the long run. I would have already bought one or two new lenses but I will just live with what I have until I am sure Canon wants to keep my business. I hate to say it but I don't really care about their larger market share and servicing another market. I care about me.

 

[Loswr]

@jrista - I was attempting to convey the point that your statements sound like those usually made by members known for harping on DR. I used words like 'echoing' and 'parroting' and 'sound like'. I don't think 'Poor DR spells doom for Canon' is your mantra, despite a couple of statements to that effect. "Friends don't let friends become DRiveling DRones!"

But hey, if you feel that means you need defending and merits throwing out descriptors like 'childish', 'bully' and 'disgraceful', that's your prerogative.

Have a nice day.

 

[that1guyy]

I just think it's embarrassing how Canon's top of the line crop cameras are so far behind technologically to Sony's. Whether or not it will lead to the demise of Canon, I don't know.

http://nofilmschool.com/2014/08/dynamic-range-new-550-sony-a5100/

But the fact that a $500 sony has more DR than a potentially $2000+ Canon is embarrassing. Again, perhaps it won't make a dent in Canon's sales right now but if I was an executive at Canon, I wouldn't be satisfied with just good enough sales. I would want to be on the cutting edge of technology and not just sit on my ass. Seeing the competitors would have embarrassed me and motivated me to do better.


EDIT: Can the mods start deleting posts that are only about the stupid bickering done here by aged men? It's just sad.

 

[jrista]

(In my experience, "Photographic DR" is far more arbitrary, as everyone seems to define it or calculate it in a different way...

The definition and method of calculation is taught to every single person who earns a degree in photography in the country. A very large number of printers and scientists know it as well. It is not arbitrary.

And yet...it still hasn't been DEFINED. What, exactly, is the calculation you use to determine Photographic DR? Or is the calculation simply: "Shoot a step wedge and judge visually whether you have X stops or Y stops of DR?"

I'm sorry, but a simple visual judgement is insufficient. Your ignoring read noise, which you cannot do. (Well, you can...it just isn't valid...not for electronic sensors.)

I'm debating your definition of DR. You cannot simply shut that down at will.

Yes I can. It is not "my" definition. It is the definition that has been in use since Ansel Adams and Fred Archer developed the Zone System (at least). The first zone above black does not even have any texture or detail, just a tone lighter then black. And it is not dependent on grain/noise.

Your definition is flat out wrong. Simple as that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range - Photographers use "dynamic range" for the luminance range of a scene being photographed, or the limits of luminance range that a given digital camera or film can capture, [32] or the opacity range of developed film images, or the reflectance range of images on photographic papers.

Luminance range. NOT detail that has "Sony Exmor" amount of noise or less.

Please also see:

Basic Photographic Materials and Processes, Third Edition - chapters 2 and 5.

http://photo.net/learn/making-photographs/film

http://www.amazon.com/Negative-Ansel-Adams-Photography-Book/dp/0821221868

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System#Exposure_zones

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/zone_system.shtml

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dynamic-range.htm

http://www.stouffer.net/TransPage.htm

http://cameras.about.com/od/technologies/a/What-Is-Dynamic-Range.htm

Shall I go on?

In every single one of those pages you linked, including the book "The Negative" by Ansel (which I own, BTW), no one actually DEFINES what "Photographic DR" is. No one describes an objective formula by which it can be derived. I think Ken Rockwell, a poorly respected laughing stock nutjob in the photographic world (by anyone who isn't a total DSLR novice...for them, their trust of the guy is understandable), sums it up quite nicely:

"Real photographers don't care. We adjust our lighting so the subject's dynamic range fits within the range of the camera."

That isn't a definition of anything. That isn't an OBJECTIVE description of something that can be consistently applied to every camera. It's a massively SUBJECTIVE reaction, and the simple fact of the matter is: We're not always able to adjust the subjects dynamic range. As a wildlife photographer, I fully understand what he's saying...even though I don't control the sun, I still control my angle to my subject, so I can control it's lighting. That's why having a mere 7-8 stops of DR at ISO 12800 is not a huge issue for my bird and wildlife photography. It does often limit my ability to get the best subject pose and framing, but I can still control it. Or, I simply deal with the fact that I don't have enough DR, and suffer the consequences to get a better-posed, better-framed shot.

We all have to admit though...the kind of photography each one of us does most personally is not indicative of the market at large. Neuro has said that countless times. There ARE cases where we cannot control lighting or dynamic range at all.

I'll pick up a transmission wedge, and I'll shoot it and we can actually have some real examples to debate with. The key difference here is the definition of dynamic range. I do not believe there is a single objective definition of Photographic DR. It's just an arbitrary term, and it seems to be redefined at will. Hence what is often called Engineering DR. This is an objective description of dynamic range that takes into account all the traits of electronic systems. Even the Wiki page on DR that you linked states that:

Electronics engineers apply the term to:

the ratio of a specified maximum level of a parameter, such as power, current, voltage or frequency, to the minimum detectable value of that parameter.

The minimum detectable value of a parameter, such as voltage (which is what digital sensor pixels accumulate...they accumulate a voltage) is determined by the amount of noise. Once you cross the threshold of read noise, you cannot say with any certainty whether the pixel is representing a real value, or a noise value. That's the problem with noise. Therefor, just as with Audio:

Dynamic range in analog audio is the difference between low-level thermal noise in the electronic circuitry and high-level signal saturation resulting in increased distortion and, if pushed higher, clipping.

Analog audio is a one-dimensional signal. The analog signal in a digital sensor is a two-dimensional signal. It's still an electronic signal. Instead of a simple waveform that changes over time, a digital sensor is a spatial waveform. The exact same criteria apply for a digital image signal. There isn't any difference between sampling an analog audio frequency, and sampling a spatial waveform with a pixel. Both determine the amplitude of the signal at that location, and both are subject to noise levels in the sample. Dynamic range is the difference between low-level noise (that includes thermal or "dark current", but also read noise in a sensor) and the high level signal saturation.

I am calling into question the validity of using the old film-based Zone system to describe dynamic range in digital image sensors. Film had no readout system! In film, dynamic range was limited only by the amount of grain, which means it effectively behaved like an "ideal sensor"...the only source of noise was photon shot noise, inherent in the image resolved by the lens itself. Digital sensors are not only subject to photon shot noise...but they have the addition of read noise to content with. The zone system makes no allowance for read noise, nor does it provide any consistent means of accounting for read noise.

Read noise cannot be ignored in digital sensors. It IS the point at which we reach the "minimum detectable values". The more read noise a system has, the lower the dynamic range, even if the pixels of the sensor themselves are actually capable of more, when those pixels are read out, the least significant bits of those pixels will be obscured and potentially obliterated by noise from the electronics of the readout logic.

 

[jrista]

@jrista - I was attempting to convey the point that your statements sound like those usually made by members known for harping on DR. I used words like 'echoing' and 'parroting' and 'sound like'. I don't think 'Poor DR spells doom for Canon' is your mantra, despite a couple of statements to that effect. "Friends don't let friends become DRiveling DRones!"

But hey, if you feel that means you need defending and merits throwing out descriptors like 'childish', 'bully' and 'disgraceful', that's your prerogative.

Have a nice day.

I'm not trying to insult you, however I do think you should know how you came off in your little fight with ZigZag. That was an embarrassing episode. You should have taken the high road, and just ignored the guy...but you did not. You stooped to his level, and became exactly what he started out being on his first day here. I loath the guy, he was flat out, strait up, a literal bully. He seemed quite proud of that fact. I tried to defend you on a couple occasions, despite you stooping to his level. He PMed me multiple times about you, and I laid into the guy about his behavior and his treatment of you.

It was honestly dismaying to see you behave the same way he did. He was banned for his behavior, for Christ sake! All I'm saying is...you have a side to you that is decidedly NOT nice. It's downright mean and, yes, it comes off as childish. Just, be aware of that, and try to keep it in check...because again, in all honesty, I don't read what you write the same way anymore. When someone disagrees with you, your ultimate intent APPEARS to be to crush them, utterly. ;P You seem to have a DRoneaphobia as well. It's like the mere mention of DR sets off something in you, and you....just....must....CRUUUSH.



What do you think if everyone here started emailing Canon, started hitting up their booths at conventions, and started loudly demanding better sensor IQ? I mean, I know it "doesn't matter" to their bottom line, to their shareholders...but, doesn't better sensor IQ (and I don't just mean low ISO DR...Magic Lantern has boosted HIGH ISO DR by a stop or more!) matter to everyone here? It's clear that we can have more. It's clear that it's possible to create a sensor with nearly 80% Q.E. at room temperature, which means that we could quite literally see a one-stop improvement in high ISO noise for an APS-C sensor. It's more than clear that we can have two additional stops of DR at low ISO without that, but with a Q.E. boost, we could even have THREE stops of additional DR at low ISO (assuming 15-bit or better sensors.) It's clear we can have more pixels without sacrificing IQ.

Does no one here want any of that? If the members of these forums got up, got vocal, and started demanding...do you really think that wouldn't have any impact? Do you think Canon would completely ignore us...or, might hey possible take notice at least? Do you think that other communities on the net would notice that we've presented Canon with a unified front demanding better sensor IQ across the board, low ISO, high ISO, more pixels, better pixels, everything. Do you not think that could start a movement that could really light a fire under Canon' proverbial ass and force them to do something?

And, conversely...if we all just sit back and perpetually defend Canon for not doing anything wrong (which is absolutely true...they haven't done anything wrong...but they could do BETTER)...what will Canon do? If they HEAR their customers say en-mass "We don't expect you to do any more, to do any better, to innovate faster, to employ better technology."...why would they change?

Dunno...just some thoughts. We may be entirely irrelevant, but the fact that we are considered Canon Fanboy Central here by many other photography forums on the net (though particularly DPR and Nikon Rumors)...it just makes me wonder if we might actually have some sway...

 

[jrista]

(In my experience, "Photographic DR" is far more arbitrary, as everyone seems to define it or calculate it in a different way...

The definition and method of calculation is taught to every single person who earns a degree in photography in the country. A very large number of printers and scientists know it as well. It is not arbitrary.

And yet...it still hasn't been DEFINED. What, exactly, is the calculation you use to determine Photographic DR? Or is the calculation simply: "Shoot a step wedge and judge visually whether you have X stops or Y stops of DR?"

I'm sorry, but a simple visual judgement is insufficient. Your ignoring read noise, which you cannot do. (Well, you can...it just isn't valid...not for electronic sensors.)

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

Yeah...probably right.

 

[Loswr]

I just think it's embarrassing how Canon's top of the line crop cameras are so far behind technologically to Sony's.

Can you please list the features that make a camera like the Sony A5100 so technologically superior to a top of the line Canon crop camera. Feel free to discuss advantages in areas like native lens selection, AF speed, frame rate, focus tracking of moving subjects, integration with a radio-controlled off-camera flash system, etc.

If you mean sensor and not camera, please say so. As I've said repeatedly, people don't buy bare silicon sensors to take pictures, they buy cameras.

 

[jrista]

I just think it's embarrassing how Canon's top of the line crop cameras are so far behind technologically to Sony's.

Can you please list the features that make a camera like the Sony A5100 so technologically superior to a top of the line Canon crop camera. Feel free to discuss advantages in areas like native lens selection, AF speed, frame rate, focus tracking of moving subjects, integration with a radio-controlled off-camera flash system, etc.

If you mean sensor and not camera, please say so. As I've said repeatedly, people don't buy bare silicon sensors to take pictures, they buy cameras.

This I totally agree with. At the moment, Sony "cameras" are not better than Canon's...and their "RAW" image format is a joke.

 

[Sporgon]

What do you think if everyone here started emailing Canon, started hitting up their booths at conventions, and started loudly demanding better sensor IQ?

Of all the things that I have read of yours on CR that is the most extraordinary to date.

Demanding better IQ. Have you actually used a camera with the Sony Exmor sensor ? I know nothing about astrophotography, or whatever it's called; perhaps there is a benefit there, but to 'demand better IQ' with the exceptional sensors we now have........

 

[jrista]

What do you think if everyone here started emailing Canon, started hitting up their booths at conventions, and started loudly demanding better sensor IQ?

Of all the things that I have read of yours on CR that is the most extraordinary to date.

Demanding better IQ. Have you actually used a camera with the Sony Exmor sensor ? I know nothing about astrophotography, or whatever it's called; perhaps there is a benefit there, but to 'demand better IQ' with the exceptional sensors we now have........

I don't believe the sensors we have now are "exceptional". I believe they are "good", but relative to what's possible, they are not exceptional. They may have been exceptional five years ago...but, that was five years ago. Things change. Things ARE relative. And as I said (which you did not quote)...I'm not just speaking about low ISO DR. It's possible to have more high ISO DR, it's possible to have all this, both improved low and high ISO DR, WITH MORE PIXELS.

It's a simple question. Do you NOT want to have better IQ across the board? Truly? I mean, technology PROGRESSES. So, if you are honestly telling me that you do NOT want better top to bottom sensor IQ....

Then that is one of the most extraordinary comments I've ever read on these forums to date.

I think I got lost in fighting against DXO and defending Canon all these years, and forgot that I DO WANT BETTER! I WANT BETTER! I WANT MORE! I KNOW IT'S POSSIBLE, TOO. I honestly cannot think that I am ALONE on that front. I plain and simply don't even believe it. I think people here will only say they don't want more and better simply to continue defending their preferred brand. It's fine to prefer Canon. I do. I have many reasons for preferring them. However...that is no reason not to demand they give us more. I want D800 level low ISO IQ strait out of camera. I want ML-level high ISO DR strait out of camera. I want 70-80% Q.E. I want 50 megapixels. I can USE every single one of those sensor IQ improvements.

So...honestly...what's wrong with getting vocal about that TO CANON. You don't have to give a crap about any other brand...the point is to stand up and get vocal about your wants TO CANON, so your preferred brand will improve, will start offering you more capability.

 

[xps]

Looks better now...

I heard an rumor (discussion between some CPS workers), that the sensor could be an updated 70D´s one. With an improved layer concept (not multilayer). Slightly better DR, 1/2 better aperture in noise. Could this be true?
And an better internal jpeg algorithm, to "pimp up" the jpegs electronically

 

[Sporgon]

It's a simple question. Do you NOT want to have better IQ across the board? Truly? I mean, technology PROGRESSES. So, if you are honestly telling me that you do NOT want better top to bottom sensor IQ....

The current sensors are not holding me back from anything I want to produce. I would like to see improvements in gradient of clipping to white and black, significantly more DR would speed up my processing.

But to be quite honest, do I want sensor technology to progress to the point where anyone, never mind how unskilled, can press the shutter and produce a perfectly post processed picture irrespective of the mistakes they make in exposure ? No I don't.

Despite all the advancement in digital imaging, photographic skill still plays a major role; I'm sure that that challenge to improve and advance is what many enjoy. However it is gradually being whittled down by technology. I just hope it doesn't go altogether.

To a certain extent photography as an art form is defined by its limitations.

 

[Lee Jay]

New Battery – LP-E6N

I haven't kept up with the battery changes. Are the current varients interchangeable and just have different capacities or are they genuinely different? Is Canon just trying to keep people buying their batteries and away from third parties?

I have, and intend to continue to have, both full frame (5D) and crop bodies but will absolutely demand that they use the same batteries and chargers like my current two do.

 

[unfocused]

What do you think if everyone here started emailing Canon, started hitting up their booths at conventions, and started loudly demanding better sensor IQ?

Of all the things that I have read of yours on CR that is the most extraordinary to date.

Demanding better IQ. Have you actually used a camera with the Sony Exmor sensor ? I know nothing about astrophotography, or whatever it's called; perhaps there is a benefit there, but to 'demand better IQ' with the exceptional sensors we now have........

Ha! This is extraordinary. There are a grand total of 8,132 members of this forum. This particular thread has drawn a total of just under 18,000 view and 402 replies.

That's good for an internet forum, but hardly significant in terms of customers. And, don't assume that a significant percentage of these forum participants agree with the premise. Please, let's have a little perspective here.

There are maybe what? – a dozen persons on this forum who consistently comment on and claim dissatisfaction with dynamic range from Canon sensors.

Would I mind having improvements in sensors? No, of course, not. Do I think the differences between brands of sensors has any real impact on the quality of my photographs, absolutely not.

Would I want Canon to divert research and development dollars away from other improvements to focus exclusively on sensor improvement? No way!

In fact, in thinking about features that would make be consider buying a new camera, an extra stop of dynamic range wouldn't even make it into the top 20.

The current sensors are not holding me back from anything I want to produce... To a certain extent photography as an art form is defined by its limitations.

Exactly. The joy and art of photography is in trying to make a machine conform to an individual's vision. To take the basic elements of a photograph and wrestle a compelling image from a mechanical box.

Stephen Shore described the basic elements of all photographs: flatness, frame, time and focus. John Szarkowski talked about: the thing itself, the detail, the frame, time and vantage point.

Both essentially are describing the same things. These are what make photographs photographs and until I master each of these, I'm really not going to worry about minute differences in sensors. I expect it will take me the rest of my life.

So, if others want to start a new grassroots movement to demand more dynamic range in Canon sensors, go ahead, knock yourselves out.

 

[Lee Jay]

Exactly. The joy and art of photography is in trying to make a machine conform to an individual's vision.

That machine's job is to make ME the limitation, not it.