Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
jrista said:
I've said repeatedly that Exmor sensors have more. Just not 2, 3, 4, or 9,001 more stops like certain people claim. How much more depends on the cameras being compared, but with currently shipping models it's generally 1 stop or less.
Nope. ;D ;D ;D
jrista, have you ever produced an HDR image and checked the EXIF in PS? No?
Both Photoshop CS6 and Photomatix Pro include EXIF data from one of the frames in the final merged HDR file. Lately those are the only two I've been using, but when I last tried the various demos out there I don't recall seeing even one that didn't include the EXIF from one of the frames. (I'm sure some don't. There are a lot of HDR tools out there today.)
GND filtered files will obviously have EXIF, as would just about all manual exposure blends (generally you start with one of your frames when manually blending, you don't create an entirely new canvas).
It is painfully obvious that you have no experience shooting and producing these types of photos which is why you think these are single exposures. And why you're jealous of "Exmor DR." This is what the entire Exmor debate boils down to: lack of knowledge and proper testing. (Wandering around photo sites looking at Nikon HDR landscapes is also a classic case of confirmation bias.)
Looking through your links there are two which could possibly be a single exposure pushed because of haze masking the sun. In those cases Canon would have produced very similar results.
The rest are either HDR, manual blends, or use GND filters. Three are blatantly obvious.
http://500px.com/photo/66068697/cave-arch-by-dustin-lefevre
HDR that slaps you in the side of the head. Did you really believe this was a single frame? Really? ???
http://500px.com/photo/29165673/bright-%7C-arches-by-ali-erturk
So HDR it's not even funny.
http://500px.com/photo/79520935/sunset-in-bergen-by-attilio-ruffo
Obvious manual blend given the unevenness on the right side. (Also way over the top processing in general.)
Manual blends and GNDs do not have this. Good HDR software will generally correct for it though if you shoot fast it's rarely an issue any way.
Again, it is painfully obvious you have zero experience producing these kinds of shots. You don't need an Exmor sensor. You need to:
* Stop arguing in this thread
* Do a Google search.
* Read and watch some of the many excellent tutorials out there.
* Download some HDR demo software.
* Go out and photograph some HDR scenes.
Simply not an issue with manual blends and GND. HDR software generally has a much more difficult time correcting water movement, but there are tricks around it.
Still think Canon sensors have the same kind of dynamic range as Exmor?
Hmmm...
https://flic.kr/p/d6SwfA
https://flic.kr/p/hHQU3d
https://flic.kr/p/da7Q34
https://flic.kr/p/kTpTGB
https://flic.kr/p/oE8J3q
https://flic.kr/p/nbguR8
https://flic.kr/p/cx5mQf
https://flic.kr/p/cboEHs
https://flic.kr/p/nuWLxw
https://flic.kr/p/f27f1t
https://flic.kr/p/eCdm1T
https://flic.kr/p/eZFLdr
https://flic.kr/p/eMRbhH
https://flic.kr/p/egxmh2
Remember, EXIF proves it's a single frame, and clouds or water absolutely confirm it! ;D
And there are even some 7D frames in that list! I've clearly proven that even the old Canon 7D has the same dynamic range as the latest Sony Exmor! ;D ;D ;D
Upvote
0
Lee Jay said:
The LP-E4 and LP-E4N are nearly identical except for capacity and some safety related changes in the battery and charger. They are compatible.
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2013/lp-e4n_battery_pack.htmlp
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Since there has been a raging debate over shadows, noise etc. and I am sooo tired of it, I've decided to start a new post processing thread on the issue. This is not intended to debate the relative merits of one sensor over another. We've had enough of that. In fact, I intend to ask the mods to delete anyone who tries to use it as a soapbox.
But, there are very skilled photographers on this forum who shoot at higher ISOs or with broad ranges of light and manage to produce stunning photographs – even with Canon equipment
Sporgon, I'm thinking of you for one.
I really want to improve and learn post processing tips and techniques from others. So please, share your favorite noise reduction workflows http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22372.msg428821#msg428821
This seems a lot more positive outlet than spending page after page and hour after hour re-posting the same talking points over and over and over again.
But, there are very skilled photographers on this forum who shoot at higher ISOs or with broad ranges of light and manage to produce stunning photographs – even with Canon equipment
Sporgon, I'm thinking of you for one.
I really want to improve and learn post processing tips and techniques from others. So please, share your favorite noise reduction workflows http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22372.msg428821#msg428821
This seems a lot more positive outlet than spending page after page and hour after hour re-posting the same talking points over and over and over again.
Upvote
0
dtaylor said:
You might want to take a peek at the end of the "Beautiful sunsets" thread...
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8105.500
Upvote
0
jrista said:
MIT doesn't think so.
jrista, it's obvious you've never shot a step wedge, and it's also now plainly obvious you have no experience with HDR photography (all techniques since you recognize none of them: HDR software, manual blending, and GND filters).
You need to stop arguing and start learning. I am not going to continue to debate something that I have fully defended and referenced, something which is consistent with observable evidence including evidence you yourself posted. This is becoming worse then debating a moon landing conspiracy theorist
Shoot a step wedge and learn.
0-16384 (14 bit ADC) is infinity? ???
Do you need an education in basic mathematics?
I pointed you to a book from MIT that defines it, explains how to test it, and explains how to interpret the results. This is no longer open for debate until you actually make an effort to learn and understand.
Hours? It takes you hours to move sliders in ACR? Or in a worst case scenario mask shadows and run a 3rd party NR plugin? Hours? ???
Enough...you are arguing just to argue. You need to actually learn about dynamic range and high dynamic range photography. That won't happen while you're being stubborn and argumentative on a forum.
Google "HDR tutorial" and learn how to achieve the shots you want.
Upvote
0
dtaylor said:
Hmm...really? I guess my time out in the field...literally...yesterday, gathering bracketed shots and doing HDR processing was just all a waste then:
I'm sorry. I'll sheepishly crawl back into my hole, cry some, then make another pitiful attempt at "learning" HDR. ;P
LOL, night d.
Upvote
0
dtaylor said:
What happens when you divide any number by zero? What happens when you take the logarithm of zero or infinity?
Mathematical formula for DR:
Code:
20*log(FWC/RNrms)FWC divided by noise. Hmm, let's see:
Code:
20*log(16384/0)Dur...oops... Infinity!
Upvote
0
Diltiazem said:
1,000x this. You will not get the same fine detail, tonality, or color when pushing shadows hard as you will with HDR/blending/GND. ETTR is not actually about noise, but tonality. So what happens when you ETTL and push 5 stops? Blocked up, dull tonality.
Exmor certainly does not solve this. It makes life easier when you're going to push a couple stops. And it makes substandard images when someone blindly thinks they can push 5 stops all the time.
Upvote
0
jrista said:
Introducing real math? How rude, he thought he had a zinger. But seriously, try DualISO if you haven't already.
Upvote
0
Lee Jay said:
DxO puts it at 4db or 1.3 stops better than the 70D at high ISO for 8MP normalized. The sensor size difference is just that. I might be missing something. But is what I'm seeing what sounds most reasonable just kinda guestimating what would make most sense. And it puts 6D at 4.8dB better than 7D so if the 7D2 used 6D tech wouldn't make the 7D2 1/3 stop better than the 7D? (of course it is possible that it might have 1.5-2 stops better DR at very high ISOs than the 7D, which is quite a lot more, if it had 6D per area performance)
Upvote
0
unfocused said:
and yet there were plenty of threads that were clearly titled to suggest they'd discuss sensors and DR and was the anti-DR crowd who often be the ones who jump in and start calling anyone who report some measurement names
Upvote
0
ajperk said:jrista said:LetTheRightLensIn said:
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?
ajperk said:
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.)
I suppose we could go back and forth forever, but you seem to corroborate what I suggested: at several points in your post you essentially state that it bothers you that others don't feel the same as you do. You did elaborate as to why: e.g. you've shown time and again via examples the difference in sensor capabilities, you seem to think that their differing stance is holding back progress, and an admittedly curious theory about a desire to keep others from taking good pictures. But it still essentially seems to come down to this: you're bothered that others aren't as bothered as you are. I think you may be mistaking indifference for malice.
While the mockery is childish, I think what it comes down to is people can only figure out so many ways to say "Yep, I guess you're right about it, but it really doesn't matter that much to me Can we talk about something else?" After a while, they feel badgered (as they are often interested in topics beyond Exmor sensors and DR) and give in to impish temptations.
I'm sorry you feel stuck somewhere between Nikon's offerings and Canon's. I hope this is eventually remedied for you. In the mean time, many of the rest of us are happy, not because we are all some sect of photographic Luddites, but because we honestly have different concerns and interests when it comes to photography. And, truth be told, a few of us are pretty much happy with what we've got right now, and will see what new stuff comes out when that new stuff comes out.
Anyway, I'll let you have the last word if you'd like. You take nice pictures and I bet you'll continue to with Canon, Nikon, or whatever you choose. Happy shooting!
Often someone says they hope it has more DR or they measure some new sensor and same darn it doesn't have better DR, man I hope they get with or something. And it might end there. They say that and then others talk about other aspects or what not (if it is a thread that was not made to be about DR)
but then you get out of the wood work "learn to expose moron!", "troll!", "the difference is barely noticeable", some posts dubious info from a site chopping out the main point of the site they were quoting from, someone makes mocking comments, "get out of the lab geek!", "take a photo for once (and half the people who say this end up having galleries of a few pics of cats in the backyard and the ones they are getting on have thousands of shots of all types)", "DxO is a 100% fraud in every way", "a real artists doesn't need more than 6 stops of DR", etc. etc. and then people try to counter that.
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:
I'm literally shocked. If someone else had posted that from a D800 he would have insisted it was a single frame.
So we're not actually dealing with complete ignorance about HDR, just an unshakable belief that Exmor sensors can some how do the impossible and deliver similar results from a single exposure. Interesting.
Well, let him blow $3g's on a D810 and find out.
Upvote
0
I wish that all parties would try to be more civil and resist the urge to sink to the bottom. This forum is what we make of it....neuroanatomist said:
and some advice from mom.... "Just because Timmy is an a**hole, that doesn't give you the right to be one". Keep it clean and respectful please....
Upvote
0
jrista said:
So you can produce an HDR image, you just can't recognize when HDR was used on an image. Check.
Now try your same test with a D800. When you realize the results aren't much better then a 5D3 with NR we can be done with this nonsense.
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:
Don, when people show no respect and just shout and argue over everybody, it becomes impossibly difficult to show them any respect in return.
I'd love the most verbose people to actually take the time to photograph a step wedge, it should take about 15 seconds, and post their results. One obviously naive and inexperienced HDR image that inexplicably garners some wows does not a complete understanding of wide range processing make.
But what do I know, I only earn my living shooting wide DR images with Canon gear.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
