Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?

[LetTheRightLensIn]

...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.

But why fight sooooo hard to make sure Canon stays behind in this regard forever? How is that a good thing? Sure for some it will never make any difference ever, but most have occasionally had some instant one of shot where the exposure came out wrong, with huge DR you can save it and probably most, at least once in a blue moon, have a shot that no matter what you do with what care won't come out as nicely, so even for them at least here and there it would help and there are some decent number who did hit the limitations fairly often and for whom it could make a decent bit of difference. Now sure you can take an infinite number of amazing shots with the Canon where the DR at low ISO makes zero difference, nobody says otherwise, but why fight soooo sooo hard to help insure that Canon never moves forward and all? Surely even you could make use of exmor quality low ISO at least once in a blue moon. Would you rather have that or, for some, bizarre, reason not?

And the way you mock and sometimes knowingly obfuscate, I mean why? To what good end for anyone?

And yeah for some it doesn't make any difference and sure you can simply just shoot the scnes and subjects where it doesn't matter and have fun taking an infinite number of stunning shots as is, but why fight so hard to not increase the chances that some will be able to shoot a much wider variety of subject types or that anyone won't be able to better rescue a shot where they did mess up.

It's clear that Canon won't bother unless they feel tremendous and heated pressure of every sort imaginable.
So let people go on about it and make a huge deal, the worst thing that could happen is canon finally decides to improve sensors and it makes no difference to you at all that they did, it's not like it would hurt you if they went to on sensor ADC.

It maybe not a crazy, insane freaking big deal, but it's pretty clear that Canon won't care unless everybody turns it into a crazy, insane freaking big deal, they won't bother otherwise.

If the 5D4 lacks in DR, I bet they will finally start feeling it even in sales a bit and maybe that and an internet whine fest of the likes never seen before could embarrass them into action. Or maybe not, but give a try and see.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

to each their own, i've definitely seen some of it show up in nature shots

(that said the degree to which it happens overall bothers me far less than say the lesser DR of the far more aliasing free 5D3 don't get me wrong, but I personally still hope canon sticks with AA and nikon goes back to offering it, at least for another couple rounds of MP increases)

 

[eos650]

Doesn't the 6D match or exceed the 5D Mark II's specifications in every way except for resolution (and only slightly lower in resolution)? It has much lower noise at high ISO, faster FPS, more autofocus points, many more features....

No. The 6D does exceed the 5D Mark II's in many most ways, but you are overlooking several that still favor the 5D Mark II. In addition to the higher resolution that you already mentioned, here are some others that come to mind:

• Flash Sync: 6D 180th, 5D II 200th
• Max Shutter: 6D 1/4000, 5D II 1/8000
• Shutter rating: 6D 100,000, 5D II 150,000
• Auto LCD Brightness: 6D No, 5D II Yes
• Viewfinder: 6D 97%, 5D II 98%
• Sync-cable connection: 6D No, 5D II Yes
• Memory Cards: 6D SD, 5D II Compact Flash
• Custom shooting modes: 6D Two, 5D II Three
• Separate Joystick Controller: 6D No, 5D II Yes

They are both excellent cameras and seem to fit the same market. I personally would lean toward the 6D, but would be happy with either, if I didn't need to shoot action.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

for once I can agree with you

I do think it a shame Nikon went AA-less only for the 810 and hope they add an 810a.
And I hope Canon does not follow the aa-less nikon/sony (imo) kool-aid (well maybe for say 5D7 or something, MP counts may be high enough then)

 

[rrcphoto]

Alright, time for some concrete evidence. Here is a 5-frame bracketed sequence I took yesterday of a sunflower field at sunset

to be honest, you overpulled anyways compared to that D800 picture, and there's something "wrong" with that D800 one, especially the sunflower to the left of center - AND you're only seeing it as a very small image so you can't tell if / how there is any artifact happening as you blow it up either. and that sun doesn't look right on his shot either (unless that's a nuclear explosion that just went off)

point is, if you need 10EV of latitude such as this shot, it's always going to be tricky.

I would do the bracketting and a much finer level of merging the photos as your best bet (and with this guy's shot as well )

not to mention, something looks "false" about the entire thing anyways, it's too flat, there's no shadows - my mind looks at that and goes - what planet is this from where there's light bouncing back behind the sunset?

 

[Sporgon]

Alright, time for some concrete evidence. Here is a 5-frame bracketed sequence I took yesterday of a sunflower field at sunset

to be honest, you overpulled anyways compared to that D800 picture, and there's something "wrong" with that D800 one, especially the sunflower to the left of center - AND you're only seeing it as a very small image so you can't tell if / how there is any artifact happening as you blow it up either. and that sun doesn't look right on his shot either (unless that's a nuclear explosion that just went off)

point is, if you need 10EV of latitude such as this shot, it's always going to be tricky.

I would do the bracketting and a much finer level of merging the photos as your best bet (and with this guy's shot as well )

not to mention, something looks "false" about the entire thing anyways, it's too flat, there's no shadows - my mind looks at that and goes - what planet is this from where there's light bouncing back behind the sunset?

How about this one then ?

Look at all that wholesome DR ;D

http://www.pashadelic.com/en/users/5-kenji

 

[rrcphoto]

Alright, time for some concrete evidence. Here is a 5-frame bracketed sequence I took yesterday of a sunflower field at sunset

to be honest, you overpulled anyways compared to that D800 picture, and there's something "wrong" with that D800 one, especially the sunflower to the left of center - AND you're only seeing it as a very small image so you can't tell if / how there is any artifact happening as you blow it up either. and that sun doesn't look right on his shot either (unless that's a nuclear explosion that just went off)

point is, if you need 10EV of latitude such as this shot, it's always going to be tricky.

But it doesn't need to be - and more to the point, it isn't with a Nikon or Sony camera. So why should it be thus with a Canon camera?

and like i said, it still doesn't look good at all on the sony one either, and in reality we don't know how the original shot was done anyways.

it's a difficult shot either way with an ND grad - which is the right way to do that shot. (and btw, he lists grad filters in his equipment)

also if you find your camera of choice doesn't do the job and there is one that does - why the hell are you here?

(this always puzzled me)

 

[rrcphoto]

Alright, time for some concrete evidence. Here is a 5-frame bracketed sequence I took yesterday of a sunflower field at sunset

to be honest, you overpulled anyways compared to that D800 picture, and there's something "wrong" with that D800 one, especially the sunflower to the left of center - AND you're only seeing it as a very small image so you can't tell if / how there is any artifact happening as you blow it up either. and that sun doesn't look right on his shot either (unless that's a nuclear explosion that just went off)

point is, if you need 10EV of latitude such as this shot, it's always going to be tricky.

I would do the bracketting and a much finer level of merging the photos as your best bet (and with this guy's shot as well )

not to mention, something looks "false" about the entire thing anyways, it's too flat, there's no shadows - my mind looks at that and goes - what planet is this from where there's light bouncing back behind the sunset?

How about this one then ?

Look at all that wholesome DR ;D

http://www.pashadelic.com/en/users/5-kenji

I love his work, however I suspect that Kenji will manage to do amazing work regardless of his camera of choice.

good photographers take great pictures. isn't that a surprise.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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).

are you sure? 1/2 stop better than the 70D per unit of sensor area?? i though it was more like 1/8th?

anyway 2/3rds of a stop improvement for 7D SNR would be pretty impressive and I guess that much is theoretically possible, but I wouldn't be 100% counting on that.

I think the 5D3 was just over half stop better than 5D2 and the 7D was some degree better than the 5D2 (again talking per sensor area, not overall!) so I doubt the 5D3 is more than 1/4 to 1/6th better than the 7D per sensor area. The6D and 5D3 SNR seem to be about the same.

Maybe you mean high ISO DR and not the highly photon dominated SNR? The 6D did take a big step there over the other stuff. The 7D2 could easily have 2/3rds stop better high ISO DR than the 7D, easily.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

i'm pretty confident the 7D successor will deliver in AF and sport department, i just really hope it will also deliver some improvements in ISO department. Digic6 should bring something to the table, hoping for 2/3 - 1 stop ISO improvement over 70D.

Digic can't improve high ISO (unless you mean in cam jpgs and the NR algorithm)

1 stop will be tricky, people forget how good these cameras already at at high ISO for SNR and that the limits of physics are not all that far off, they are so good

of course more DR at high iso can help a lot too, since there is so little there now for most cams, it is entirely absolutely possible the 7D2 could end up with 2/3rds stop better DR at ISO3200 than the 7D, maybe even more.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Who thought the Canon EF 16-35 f/4.0 L would be such an incredible lens because hey! Canon can't make a decent WA.

I actually thought most people had high expectations for it actually.

People used to say Canon can't make a decent WA, but that was a few years back, before the 24-70 II, 24-70 f/4 IS, 24 2.8 IS, 28 2.8 IS, 17 T&S, 24 T&S II .

 

[Click]

People used to say Canon can't make a decent WA, but that was a few years back, before the 24-70 II, 24-70 f/4 IS, 24 2.8 IS, 28 2.8 IS, 17 T&S, 24 T&S II .

+1

 

[Diltiazem]

Alright, time for some concrete evidence. Here is a 5-frame bracketed sequence I took yesterday of a sunflower field at sunset:

The shots were bracketed 2 stops apart. I was shooting directly into the sun, as you can see. Did I really want to? Well, kind of. More importantly, I HAD to. The sunflowers face east, towards the rising sun. To actually have sunflowers in my photos, I had to shoot directly into the sun.

Here are the first, middle, and last images:

The first was exposed for the sun. The last was exposed for the foreground. Now, since everyone want's a fair comparison, I'm using the middle image from the 5-frame sequence as the "most fair" towards my 5D III. Here it is after processing it to extract the most detail possible:

This is a +3 stop exposure pull (lift), -100 highlights, -100 whites, +60 shadows. As you can see, the sun is blown, and it has some posterization around it. Here is a closeup of the sun:

Here is a closeup of the noise in the foreground:

That's not good noise. That's nasty noise. It's banded, red-shifted, and it is already getting blotchy. I also took the image exposed for the sun, and did a +5 stop exposure pull, -100 highlights, -100 whites, +75 shadows, +10 blacks:

In this shot, the sun is MUCH better, although it's still hot and overexposed in the end. However, the foreground...the foreground is absolutely atrocious. The 5D III can MAYBE handle a +3 stop pull, but it definitely can not handle a +5 stop pull. If one were to listen to dtaylor about Photographic DR, one would believe that Canon cameras are only within a third-stop of Exmor sensors...however, who on earth would consider the above image acceptable? Anyone? I mean, be truly honest here.

Here is a close up comparison of the noise, color fidelity, and detail of the +5 pull, +3 pull, +3 pull denoised/debanded, and the last shot that was exposed for the foreground:

The +5 stop pull, as well as the +3 stop pull, both suffer from the fact that a lot of the detail is buried within the noise floor. I worked the +3 stop pull for about 10 minutes. I could probably reduce noise further, however I was already losing detail (look at the edges of some of the leaves deeper in the shadows of the +3 denoised...compare them with the +3 non-denoised and the full exposure...LOT of softening!!) I did not even bother to denoise the +5 stop pull...that is well beyond the capabilities of ANY Canon camera. Since most computer screens are 8-bit, a 3-stop pull is necessary to fully realize the 11 stops worth of DR in a Canon RAW, without lifting the read noise as well. Well, based on the samples here, even a 3-stop pull is kind of pushing it...the banding and color blotchiness is all read noise...photon shot noise exhibits as clean, random noise (of which there is definitely plenty, but it's mixed with read noise as well.) A 5-stop pull would be necessary to fully realize the 13 stops worth of DR that a D800 has. I don't think anyone honestly denies that Sony Exmor sensors have more DR. Aside from dtaylor's Photographic DR, the standard definition of Engineering DR, the ratio between the clipping point and the RMS of read noise (the read noise floor) indicates that Exmor sensors have a two-stop lead on Canon sensors. So...with a D800...I could have made this photograph in a single shot. Directly into the sun, underexposed by five stops, then lifted five stops.

Finally, here is the HDR merge:

I had problems with this. It was a 5-frame sequence, separated by 2 stops. I ran into problems with posterization around the sun, and even after the HDR merge, I could not fully realize the sun. I was able to recover the sky and all the other detail, but still not the sun. Given the nature of the posterization, I figure I would have needed at least a 9-frame sequence separated by 1 stop or less to produce a fine enough grade in the highlights around the sun to avoid posterization. Some HDR wizards would have probably shot 15 frames. Either way....it's more work. Getting a 15-frame sequence for HDR that does not run into problems with motion in the scene...the sunflowers moving in the wind, the clouds moving, even the sun moving as it sets, is more difficult.

And, I could have gotten it in a single shot with a D800. Here is a single-shot sunflowers into the sunset shot with a D800 on 500px:

http://500px.com/photo/40685186/sunset-flowers-)-by-kenji-yamamura

No denying that Exmor sensor will do better in this situation, but don't expect miracle from them. If you lift 5 stops of shadow you end up with plenty of noise, color aberration and loss of detail. It will be something similar to your 3 stop recovery and denoise. The other thing that happens is that shadow lifted areas will be distastefully bland with lack of contrast and muted color. So, you will need more processing (selective contrast enhancement, color boosting, color correction etc) in addition to NR in the shadow lifted areas to make it presentable. You are looking at pretty small sized images from D800 (links you have provided so far), they don't tell you the full story. How do I know these? I have done literally hundreds of tests with my D600, 5DIII and 6D. When I am shooting against the sun and end up lifting around 5 stops of shadows (not always you need 5 stops though), it can take up 15 to 20 minutes to make something presentable with out of one D600 file.
Yeah, Exmor is better, but it is not as perfect as many people think. As I said in an earlier post if you need the best quality (shadow lifted areas as good as bright areas), other techniques are still better.

When i first got my D600 I was lifting shadows right, left and center (and more ). It was like an obsession. I was intentionally looking for scenes that would need shadow lifting. After some time it wasn't fun anymore. Soon though, couple of things occurred to me. a) I wasn't doing photography anymore, I wad doing experiments only. b) In my kind of photography I very rarely needed extreme shadow lifting that Canon couldn't handle. After the realization fun in photography has returned and more than 90% of the time they are done with Canon gears.
So, I would say if someone's work involves lot's of shadow lifting and if someone is not willing to do other techniques (filter, exposure blending etc), then Exmor will do a much better job than Canon. But don't expect miracles. Better doesn't mean perfect.

 

[jrista]

Alright, time for some concrete evidence. Here is a 5-frame bracketed sequence I took yesterday of a sunflower field at sunset

to be honest, you overpulled anyways compared to that D800 picture, and there's something "wrong" with that D800 one, especially the sunflower to the left of center - AND you're only seeing it as a very small image so you can't tell if / how there is any artifact happening as you blow it up either. and that sun doesn't look right on his shot either (unless that's a nuclear explosion that just went off)

point is, if you need 10EV of latitude such as this shot, it's always going to be tricky.

I would do the bracketting and a much finer level of merging the photos as your best bet (and with this guy's shot as well )

not to mention, something looks "false" about the entire thing anyways, it's too flat, there's no shadows - my mind looks at that and goes - what planet is this from where there's light bouncing back behind the sunset?

How about this one then ?

Look at all that wholesome DR ;D

http://www.pashadelic.com/en/users/5-kenji

I'm not sure what you think this proves. If you WANT more contrast, then there is nothing stopping you on the D800...you can have DR, or you can increase contrast...either way, it's a more capable device. If you NEED more shadow lifting capability, then there IS something stopping you on the 5D III. That's a really simple concept...I don't understand why no one gets it.

 

[jrista]

No denying that Exmor sensor will do better in this situation, but don't expect miracle from them. If you lift 5 stops of shadow you end up with plenty of noise, color aberration and loss of detail. It will be something similar to your 3 stop recovery and denoise. The other thing that happens is that shadow lifted areas will be distastefully bland with lack of contrast and muted color. So, you will need more processing (selective contrast enhancement, color boosting, color correction etc) in addition to NR in the shadow lifted areas to make it presentable. You are looking at pretty small sized images from D800 (links you have provided so far), they don't tell you the full story. How do I know these? I have done literally hundreds of tests with my D600, 5DIII and 6D. When I am shooting against the sun and end up lifting around 5 stops of shadows (not always you need 5 stops though), it can take up 15 to 20 minutes to make something presentable with out of one D600 file.
Yeah, Exmor is better, but it is not as perfect as many people think. As I said in an earlier post if you need the best quality (shadow lifted areas as good as bright areas), other techniques are still better.

When i first got my D600 I was lifting shadows right, left and center (and more ). It was like an obsession. I was intentionally looking for scenes that would need shadow lifting. After some time it wasn't fun anymore. Soon though, couple of things occurred to me. a) I wasn't doing photography anymore, I wad doing experiments only. b) In my kind of photography I very rarely needed extreme shadow lifting that Canon couldn't handle. After the realization fun in photography has returned and more than 90% of the time they are done with Canon gears.
So, I would say if someone's work involves lot's of shadow lifting and if someone is not willing to do other techniques (filter, exposure blending etc), then Exmor will do a much better job than Canon. But don't expect miracles. Better doesn't mean perfect.

I never said the D800 was perfect. I also did not intentionally try to find a scene that my 5D III could not handle...I saw an awesome sunflower field just before sunset started, and I wanted to photograph it. Damn good thing I bracketed...

However, you made my argument for me:

If you lift 5 stops of shadow you end up with plenty of noise, color aberration and loss of detail. It will be something similar to your 3 stop recovery and denoise.

With a single shot and a 5-stop pull, being able to get results like my 3-stop pull + denoise is HUGE. That's with a FIVE STOP PULL. I'm basically lifting detail THIRTY TWO TIMES darker than the darkest observable level before the pull. It would still have less noise, and what noise it did have is cleaner...no banding, far less color noise. Downplay it all you want...but, that's freakin awesome. I spent about 10 minutes denoising the 3-stop pull, and I lost a lot of detail. I could spend more time tweaking it...but, that's MORE TIME. I took about 20 different bracketed shots of that sunflower field. Let's say it takes 30 minutes to fix each one to the best result possible. That's TEN HOURS worth of work!!!! I don't know about others, but that's just...insane. I never spend that much time working on my wildlife and bird photos. To get the image I wanted, I did an HDR merge that still had problems with tonal gradients around the sun...I had to use brushing in ACR to clean up around the sun, and it still has some posterization. To be able to lift a single shot five stops, apply some NR, then do a little work to enhance the color in the shadows...that's a lot less work. That's what I want. I don't expect a miracle, but it would be a hell of a lot better than dicking around with HDR, taking 9-15 shots per bracket then trying to merge them without ghosting, posterization or other artifacts.

And let's say I DO need to do an HDR merge. I could take two shots two stops apart with the D800, and vastly simplify the process. I dunno. I'm tired of defending a company that is still shoving sensors that produce images that look like my 5D III samples in the shadows. That's the same freakin ISO 100 IQ we got with the 5D II years ago!! Things have changed in the market. It's possible to get radically better hardware than that now that support a vastly simpler, lighter post-processing workload. So why not?

 

[ajperk]

Alright, time for some concrete evidence. Here is a 5-frame bracketed sequence I took yesterday of a sunflower field at sunset

to be honest, you overpulled anyways compared to that D800 picture, and there's something "wrong" with that D800 one, especially the sunflower to the left of center - AND you're only seeing it as a very small image so you can't tell if / how there is any artifact happening as you blow it up either. and that sun doesn't look right on his shot either (unless that's a nuclear explosion that just went off)

point is, if you need 10EV of latitude such as this shot, it's always going to be tricky.

I would do the bracketting and a much finer level of merging the photos as your best bet (and with this guy's shot as well )

not to mention, something looks "false" about the entire thing anyways, it's too flat, there's no shadows - my mind looks at that and goes - what planet is this from where there's light bouncing back behind the sunset?

How about this one then ?

Look at all that wholesome DR ;D

http://www.pashadelic.com/en/users/5-kenji

I'm not sure what you think this proves. If you WANT more contrast, then there is nothing stopping you on the D800...you can have DR, or you can increase contrast...either way, it's a more capable device. If you NEED more shadow lifting capability, then there IS something stopping you on the 5D III. That's a really simple concept...I don't understand why no one gets it.

I've followed so many of these conversations on this website. People DO get it. They really do. They just aren't as concerned about it, are willing to use other techniques, don't like the lens options of other brands, or the ergonomics, or just plain like the camera they have bought and want to go take pictures, etc... Yeah, they may quibble here and there about this statement or that, this example or that, this measure or that, but everyone concedes the substance of everything you are trying to argue for here. They simply don't get as worked up over it, and don't think it will make such a big impact in there photography if they change cameras (or, may even be worried that it will negatively impact their photography for non-DR related reasons).

Personally, what I don't understand is why so many people spend so much time worrying that there might be someone else on this forum that doesn't agree completely with their gear choices or the rationale for those choices.

 

[3kramd5]

The only part I'd be concerned with is the ability of the A7r to hold a long/heavy lens on a tripod.

er... what? The tripod holds the lens, the lens holds the camera.

 

[ishdakuteb]

these questions is written especially for dilbert:

1. where in the world that canon suggest users to increase 5 stops in post? only 3 stops max that i know. however, if i shot an image and increase close to 2 stops of exposure, i consider myselft as a looser in the learning game.

2. sensors see two of these images as the same exposure? assume that:
a. focus points of the two cameras were on the same brightness level, and
b. images are seeing at sensor levels, not taken yet, and
c. excluding the use of spot meter since i do not think the photographers did in this case.

if yes, then dilbert, you need to learn more LOL....

note: if you think that i steal the image from 500px, take a look closely and then make a determination, do not act like your friend. honestly, i can get any images from online as long as i want, but in this case... i don't...

 

[ishdakuteb]

The only part I'd be concerned with is the ability of the A7r to hold a long/heavy lens on a tripod.

er... what? The tripod holds the lens, the lens holds the camera.

lol...

 

[jrista]

And the way you mock and sometimes knowingly obfuscate, I mean why? To what good end for anyone?

This is the thing right here. After the ZigZagZoe episode, I started seeing this fundamentally mocking behavior. Now I'm getting it in boatloads from Sporgon. THAT is what I don't get. I've bickered about technical details all the time, but I don't think I ever got to MOCKING people. I've argued from the other side of the fence before as well, I've defended the position of D800 advocates in the past on several occasions, however most of those also involved DXO, and I walked the line between defending the D800's DR advantage, and attacking DXO's bad science.

Seeing the mockery is part of why I'm changing my stance. We all know the benefits that technology like that in Exmor can offer. And yet, when I ask...would anyone here stand up and start vocally demanding fundamentally better sensor technology from Canon in the next DSLR...I get mocked? I honestly, truly, don't understand that. DXO isn't a factor in this discussion...it's just purely about the real-world differences in editing latitude between Canon sensors and Exmor. That's all it took, to go from a guy people seemed to generally respect, to a laughing stock?

Personally, what I don't understand is why so many people spend so much time worrying that there might be someone else on this forum that doesn't agree completely with their gear choices or the rationale for those choices.

It's not that someone else doesn't agree. It's the unmitigated mocking fanboyism that REFUSES to acknowledge an alternative stance on the subject, and not only that, is apparently more than happy to KEEP THEMSELVES STUCK in the dark ages. Despicably even, some apparently don't want technology to improve so those they consider non-photographers CAN'T CREATE BETTER PHOTOS!! I'm sorry, but that disgusts me. It's a useless reason, born purely out of egotistical selfishness.

I've spouted theory and simple math for years on these forums. In most respects, the theories were correct...but I am honestly down right surprised at how poorly the 5D III, a camera of the same generation as the D800, performs at ISO 100 in the shadows. I remember the IQ from the 5D II...it was marginally worse...but generally, the same darn thing! I expected more...and I am happy to admit I was SORELY wrong about the 5D III's capabilities at low ISO. It more than lives up to my expectations at high ISO, and at any ISO where shadow lifting is not necessary, it's fine. But it doesn't do what I had hoped it would do for landscapes. So I've changed my stance. I have to look at the facts and accept I was wrong about something. So I DID!

And...I get mocked for it. That is the problem, ajperk. I could care less if someone agrees with me, really. I could really care less about being mocked...I don't care. But to see a whole community of people with their heads in the sand...and happy about it? So happy about it, in fact, that they will defend Canon to the last, to the end, regardless of whether that means they are stuck with increasingly inferior equipment as the years roll on?

Well...to each is own, I guess. Me, I'm going to get vocal about Canon's crappy low ISO noise, and do everything I can to back up my claims with concrete, visual evidence...because, it's really freakin NASTY noise. STILL nasty...after all these years. And I think that needs to change (especially because Canon is still my preferred brand...I'd rather have a 5D IV with 50mp and 14 stops of DR than a D800.)