Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed

[joejohnbear]

I've used a D700 and fucked up an image by underexposing it. Being able to draw out the shadows three stops is great and convenient. I agree with Jrista there. However, after learning from a well-established landscape photographer who shoots with nothing but a 5d classic and then recently a 5d mark ii, bracketing and exposure blending really is THE way to go IF your conditions condone it. There are grad ND filters and reverse ND grad filters for other situations. This is where I agree with jrista. Extra DR is REALLY useful for things like weddings, and I'm not going to say no to it if offered. However, I think it's really just one part of a larger equation in an entire camera system. There are several reasons why most of the wedding industry I'm working in my area sticks to Canon, and they don't include DR at this point unfortunately.

Your missing the point. With an Exmor, you CAN do that.

You're missing the point because you've never actually touched an Exmor equipped camera.

At a 5 stop push your tonality is junk compared to a blend where the shadows are properly exposed. Been there, tested that, would never do it except in an absolute emergency.

As other Exmor camera owners have told you point blank in this forum: at first you're blown away by the ability to push Exmor RAWs. Then you realize that's not the path to optimal IQ even without shadow noise. Then you come down from the high and realize that yes, Exmor is a little easier to work with and/or produces somewhat better shadow results in some real world cases. But Canon and Exmor are not that different after all. And generally if you are blending or using GND filters on the Canon, you want them on the Exmor as well. Likewise, with a little technique and work you can get the photo on Canon.

That's reality.

Now, I wouldn't blame anyone for buying Exmor based on that. I might ignore one camera and buy another based on button placement. Everyone has their own priorities. But...the whining and the hyperbole and the false claims in every thread of a Canon forum needs to come to a screeching halt. If I remember correctly...Neuro correct me here because I think you were the one who mentioned it in another thread...someone asked about setting LCD brightness here and got a treatise on freaking Exmor DR

And for the record: I am done believing that you actually care about this except to use as a soapbox to complain. A Sony A7 can be had for $1,300. EF adapters are...what...$100? $200? But any time someone says that it's another whine: "Sony uses lossy RAW and I might see it in 1 out of 100,000 frames."

If I was CEO of Canon and you were my customer...I would send you a gift card to a Nikon store.

 

[flyingSquirrel]

Ok, thank you very much to the people that responded to my question about video. I really appreciate it, and I am surprised to learn that video formats already are typically a smaller sensor. Good to know (as one day I will be shooting video).

As far as my hopes and expectations for the 7DmkII, I was hoping for much better IQ / lower noise, and for higher MP count (the original rumor of 24MP and a sexy sensor tech had me excited). There are some other features I was hoping for as well that are not going to happen (pro body style w/ no knobs, built in grip, etc). However, as a nature and wildlife photographer, the overall improvements to the AF system and at least some IQ improvement over the 7D are enough to make me bite.

 

[dufflover]

I think they got off lucky that Nikon didn't fix the crummy burst/buffer in the D7100.

That is relatively easy to fix, yet unless there really is a big surprise in the sensor tech (I still doubt this given the res) then it's not a good sign the next Canon release is going to catch up in this regard.

If we followed some of the claims and logic here we'd be using Intel/AMD processors in our computers from 5 years back - after all they can all browse the internet, watch videos and post on CR just fine

 

[joejohnbear]

I tried a 5DII for a while. I hated it. I wanted nothing but better autofocus. Canon delivered and then some. I wanted sharper lenses. Canon delivers even in the low-end STM lenses and with most of their newer zooms, etc. They're revamping everything before they introduce a D810 competitor, and I think that's a smart move. Now, these improvements might not be what you need, esp. if you're doing landscape where manual focus is used anyways, but for my sports shooting and the weddings I do on weekend, these changes were HUGE. I can focus at f/1.4 with confidence, something I couldn't do on my D700.

Wait, what, what'd I say wrong? I'm just saying that everyone is harping on DR, and it's not Canon's forte now, they do other stuff better, who cares?

...I think DR-commentators aren't giving Canon credit for improving vastly in a lot of other areas.

Dude, pull your head out. It's clear that you just don't get what a camera actually is. "I'll explain and I'll use small words so that you'll be sure to understand, you warthog faced buffoon."

A camera is a box. A worthless hunk of plastic and some metal, its sole purpose is to contain and protect the glory that is the imaging sensor, keeping the grubby fingerprints of plebes like you from despoiling it's pristine surface.

"There was a mighty duel. It ranged all over. The gestalt performance ran off alone, the sensor followed those color prints toward Exmor."

"Shall we track them both?"

"The loser is nothing. Only the DR matters."

;D



(You're new here, so you may not know that I enjoy quoting The Princess Bride and sarcasm...not necessarily in that order of preference.)

While Nero's comments were not on the serious side, I am not aware of the vast improvements Canon has made in other areas that would be demonstrated with the specs listed for the 7D II. To me it looks like a rehash using existing components.
Nothing ground breaking yet, maybe when the announcement is official Canon will reveal something we do not see on the surface of the specs.

 

[dtaylor]

I'm sorry, but that is the most naive thing you have ever said. Proper exposure is NOT determined by how even the histogram is.

Having all your pixels bunched up in the left third of the histogram is NOT a proper exposure. If you think it is then that explains your problems with noise and banding.

Talk about being naive...read: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=expose+to+the+right

Proper exposure is determined by where you want the tones of the scene to go, and what you want to preserve (in the case of digital, you always want to preserve highlights, because clipping them means they are gone forever).

He could have shot that scene 3 stops higher and recovered those highlights. 2 stops more and you wouldn't even need to recover them. The scene is underexposed.

THAT is the difference, right there. BOTH cameras were exposed to preserve the highlights.

The "highlights" are gray. That's not exposing to preserve the highlights.

Your misunderstanding of the differences is what's become ridiculous. But there they are, the actual histograms.

And the actual proof that you are clueless about exposure. Click the link above. Read. Learn.

Your frustrated because you seem to think I'm spreading lies and innuendo.

No. Just the hyperbole imagination of someone who has never even touched an Exmor camera.

 

[dtaylor]

Anyway it's useless responding to you, so that was the last one.
Write whatever you want.

And yet, three minutes later, your are back posting. Don't promise to leave and then keep posting. It raises our hopes too much.

#SickBurn ;D

 

[dtaylor]

Ah, there it is, the most predictable of human behaviors: denial. The data is now directly refuting your claims,

I think you better check the data again

The Coke box data (which is a real-world studio example)

LOL! You would get fired for doing a studio product shot and delivering a file that underexposed ;D

The Coke box example IS a real-world example...

Yes it is. If you blow your exposures that bad Exmor might be able to save you.

It's ETTRed

I hope you spend some time reading about ETTR tonight. It would solve...so many problems.

 

[takesome1]

I tried a 5DII for a while. I hated it. I wanted nothing but better autofocus. Canon delivered and then some. I wanted sharper lenses. Canon delivers even in the low-end STM lenses and with most of their newer zooms, etc. They're revamping everything before they introduce a D810 competitor, and I think that's a smart move. Now, these improvements might not be what you need, esp. if you're doing landscape where manual focus is used anyways, but for my sports shooting and the weddings I do on weekend, these changes were HUGE. I can focus at f/1.4 with confidence, something I couldn't do on my D700.

Those things have been around a while. When the 7D was released it was a big jump in many ways. At the time the 50D was the step up to FF. The 5D II was the next model up and the 7D was a huge upgrade to the other crop bodies.

Today they release the 7D II Canon's flagship crop body with a sensor that is already in other cameras. AF system that appears to borrowed from the 5D III and 1D X. So nothing on its own that looks ground breaking yet.

I think we will probably see improvements in many areas that will not be hardware related. With more processing power we will probably see less noise out of the camera and other improvements. However they will be improvements we could have duplicated in LR with out of body processing.

And who wouldn't want DR. I wish for it every time I shoot landscapes.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Because there are a lot of people who can't afford Super-35 cameras dedicated for video like the FS-700, FS-100, C100,300,500 and are hoping for features from top end features to trickle down to "cheap" cameras as soon as in their dreams. That said, the Canon DSLR's do suck for video IF you don't publish to web. ML takes care of it, but you pay tooth through nail for actual first-party support on real video cameras instead of dula purpose DSLR's/video cameras. Remember, 5d mk ii was more than enough to start the "DSLR" video revolution, but mark my words, that revolution was unintentional and more than over now that Canon has released their own cinema cameras. When prodded, they'll release more features, but as of now there are no competitors at the same price point, despite what people will try to tell you.

The worst thing to ever happen to the amazing DSLR video revolution Canon accidentally created was when Canon marketing realized they had something good. And if people think some of the posters in these forums are harsh on Canon you should hear what the video guys say about the way Canon squashed and squandered their DSLR video revolution.

 

[Larry]

Sorry about my blabbing, I really want a 1dx on this forum . Simple and well-stated.

If you have something to say, blab away, ...but "well-stated"?

Maybe without the "s..." and F......" that you frequently seem unable to express yourself without.

I am no language prude, having spent a 37 year career surrounded by "man-talk" (firefighting), but do we really need/want that class-level of discourse here? :

 

[joejohnbear]

Like I said, it's more than R&D. Canon took a fiscally conservative approach because of their perception of decreased demand due to the recession, so they released less of their R&D at once because they perceived less demand for cameras period. Not the best move for us when we want more features, but it's one of the things to do when an economy tanks. See Thom Hogan's articles on the recession and how it affects camera companies. Meanwhile, Nikon's autofocusing is good enough, but behind for f/1.4 aperture lenses shot wide open. Plusses and minuses with both companies. Canon's sensor is good enough, but behind on DR and low ISO noise. Their 5DIII high ISO is better than the D800. D810 might push high iso better. A7s is the best on market. Camera bodies continually lap each other, it's no big deal, as I've said before. Sony does better sensors but doesn't do so well having fully well-rounded lens systems and professional services to back it up.

Fair point, but I think DR-commentators aren't giving Canon credit for improving vastly in a lot of other areas. Also, I think the length of the cycle has more to do with the stock market crashing and the recession starting in 2008, the year before the 7D was released I believe.
...

That's rubbish. R&D of cameras takes years, including at least 6 to 12 months just for testing and bug fixing.

Find the announcement of the C300, which was said to be Canon's fastest ever digital camera development. From inception to market, that was 2 to 3 years, so it seems reasonable to expect that a normal DSLR takes 3 to 5 years to develop and bring to market.

 

[joejohnbear]

No problem! Great approach, I wish more people were like you.

Ok, thank you very much to the people that responded to my question about video. I really appreciate it, and I am surprised to learn that video formats already are typically a smaller sensor. Good to know (as one day I will be shooting video).

As far as my hopes and expectations for the 7DmkII, I was hoping for much better IQ / lower noise, and for higher MP count (the original rumor of 24MP and a sexy sensor tech had me excited). There are some other features I was hoping for as well that are not going to happen (pro body style w/ no knobs, built in grip, etc). However, as a nature and wildlife photographer, the overall improvements to the AF system and at least some IQ improvement over the 7D are enough to make me bite.

 

[joejohnbear]

That makes total sense. Based on what you just said, I don't understand the need to talk switching brands, etc. I think just sit tight, and Canon WILL give you what you want. The grass will always be greener in some way, but I understand, I also agree I wish Canon had more DR, definitely nothing wrong with that now that you put it that way.

I've used a D700 and F_____ up an image by underexposing it. Being able to draw out the shadows three stops is great and convenient. I agree with Jrista there. However, after learning from a well-established landscape photographer who shoots with nothing but a 5d classic and then recently a 5d mark ii, bracketing and exposure blending really is THE way to go IF your conditions condone it. There are grad ND filters and reverse ND grad filters for other situations. This is where I agree with jrista. Extra DR is REALLY useful for things like weddings, and I'm not going to say no to it if offered. However, I think it's really just one part of a larger equation in an entire camera system. There are several reasons why most of the wedding industry I'm working in my area sticks to Canon, and they don't include DR at this point unfortunately.

I don't think anyone who knows what they are talking about has ever denied the value or versatility of other camera features. No one is denying that some photographers may put more weight on some features. Hell, even the same photographer can put different weights on different features depending on what they are shooting. I rely more on AF and frame rate than DR for my birds and wildlife. However, that doesn't mean that I don't want nor couldn't benefit from having more high ISO DR. Especially at REALLY high ISO, like 12800, 25600, and 51200, for those crepuscular hours where light just sucks balls.

At the same time, I could care less about AF and frame rate for landscapes. The single most important feature for that, well the top two now (as I'm totally hooked on the other), are sensor IQ (including dynamic range) at low ISO...and live view tethering. (I don't think I could live without the ability to tether my DSLR to my tablet when out in the middle of the mountains photographing landscapes...it's like the perfect melding of DSLR and LF Field/View Camera).

Different brushes for different paintings. My stance is this. Canon already excels at everything else. They alrady have a phenomenal AF system. They already have some of the best frame rates in the business. They already have the better frame buffer handling (Canons just keep on going, and going, and going, and going, while Nikons usually stop dead), etc. Canon already excels at everything else. They even excel at customer support...it's truly second to none, worldwide. So where could they give photographers the single greatest gains? Sensor IQ. It's the only thing they are behind on...and the realities of how far behind the competition they are only become more and more apparent each time a new camera is released (from anyone, not just Canon).

Canon's superiority on AF may not really be superiority. Nikon's 3D AF has certain unique capabilities. So does Sony's new AF system, which has a wicked cool ability I've never seen anywhere else. From where I stand, it looks like a relatively level playing field as far as AF capabilities are concerned. Canon still enjoys a lead on the frame rate front for DSLRs, however that territory is being encroached upon as well by Sony's mirrorless cameras. Canon's once-vaunted high ISO performance has been trounced by Sony's A7s...Sony now leads by as much as two stops there as well, the same two stops they enjoy at low ISO.

The ball continues to roll. Canon makes good cameras. They currently excel at most things. There is just one area where they don't excel anymore. Why is it (and this question is for everyone trying to crush the DR arguments) that mentioning that, that having a bone to pick with Canon for ignoring the sensor IQ front for so many years, is so taboo? So hated? So despised here? It's the one freaking thing Canon could really do something significant about! It's the one area where they could realize the most gains for the buck, the one area where they could deliver significant improvements to their customers.

 

[joejohnbear]

You mean the indie and low-end commercial video guys. It's just one segment of the market. Not everyone is making money off of youtube videos. That said, I wouldn't mind cool trickle down features, just saying there's already a higher end cinema market. With competitive pressure, Canon will trickle down features through firmware updates, but if there's no competitor, then why is the onus on Canon to give all their high end features for a lower price? The C300 is very popular with documentary filmmakers and film schools for a reason.

Because there are a lot of people who can't afford Super-35 cameras dedicated for video like the FS-700, FS-100, C100,300,500 and are hoping for features from top end features to trickle down to "cheap" cameras as soon as in their dreams. That said, the Canon DSLR's do suck for video IF you don't publish to web. ML takes care of it, but you pay tooth through nail for actual first-party support on real video cameras instead of dula purpose DSLR's/video cameras. Remember, 5d mk ii was more than enough to start the "DSLR" video revolution, but mark my words, that revolution was unintentional and more than over now that Canon has released their own cinema cameras. When prodded, they'll release more features, but as of now there are no competitors at the same price point, despite what people will try to tell you.

The worst thing to ever happen to the amazing DSLR video revolution Canon accidentally created was when Canon marketing realized they had something good. And if people think some of the posters in these forums are harsh on Canon you should hear what the video guys say about the way Canon squashed and squandered their DSLR video revolution.

 

[joejohnbear]

The words are censored, nbd. I used it for effect, but if it's not your cup of tea, I understand. I'm just tired of hearing people talk about gear they've never touched in their life, hence my harsh words against "armchair" commentators. My words and mentality didn't change that his statement was succinct and on point.

Sorry about my blabbing, I really want a 1dx on this forum . Simple and well-stated.

If you have something to say, blab away, ...but "well-stated"?

Maybe without the "s..." and F......" that you frequently seem unable to express yourself without.

I am no language prude, having spent a 37 year career surrounded by "man-talk" (firefighting), but do we really need/want that class-level of discourse here? :

 

[takesome1]

Like I said, it's more than R&D. Canon took a fiscally conservative approach because of their perception of decreased demand due to the recession, so they released less of their R&D at once because they perceived less demand for cameras period. Not the best move for us when we want more features, but it's one of the things to do when an economy tanks. See Thom Hogan's articles on the recession and how it affects camera companies. Meanwhile, Nikon's autofocusing is good enough, but behind for f/1.4 aperture lenses shot wide open. Plusses and minuses with both companies. Canon's sensor is good enough, but behind on DR and low ISO noise. Their 5DIII high ISO is better than the D800. D810 might push high iso better. A7s is the best on market. Camera bodies continually lap each other, it's no big deal, as I've said before. Sony does better sensors but doesn't do so well having fully well-rounded lens systems and professional services to back it up.

Fair point, but I think DR-commentators aren't giving Canon credit for improving vastly in a lot of other areas. Also, I think the length of the cycle has more to do with the stock market crashing and the recession starting in 2008, the year before the 7D was released I believe.
...

That's rubbish. R&D of cameras takes years, including at least 6 to 12 months just for testing and bug fixing.

Find the announcement of the C300, which was said to be Canon's fastest ever digital camera development. From inception to market, that was 2 to 3 years, so it seems reasonable to expect that a normal DSLR takes 3 to 5 years to develop and bring to market.

That whole idea is bull. If you withhold technology for years when you do release it is obsolete.
The opposite is true. If Canon had superior technology when the economy was at its worse they would have released it. If the economy is bad and you have superior technology you release it at that point. The reason you do it is to crush your competition who are struggling. In the long term the recession wouldn't matter to Canon, they make up any short fall when the economy is good again and their competition is crippled.

Canon didn't bring it to the market because Canon didn't have it.

Go back four years and you will see that Cameras were not getting hit hard then. Technology reached a point it was comparable with film finally and many people were switching. The economy tanked for Canon when the PS sales died off. Go back and look at profits, Canon's profits went south because of the PS market. They were having great years when the economy was in the tank. Even in the bad years they spent the same on R&D (yen relative to dollar) and made money.

 

[joejohnbear]

I feel ya, bro. I moved back from Nikon to Canon and the DR was a huge letdown. I haven't waited long enough, but I'm sure in your shoes I would feel the same way. My only experience waiting was for the 5DIII's autofocus, and they delivered for my wants and needs.

That makes total sense. Based on what you just said, I don't understand the need to talk switching brands, etc. I think just sit tight, and Canon WILL give you what you want. The grass will always be greener in some way, but I understand, I also agree I wish Canon had more DR, definitely nothing wrong with that now that you put it that way.

LOL. Well, I've been "sitting tight" long time. I picked up a 450D in late 2008, and not long after that I had my eye dead set on a 5D II. Then I saw what the K-5 could do not even a year later. Then the D7000. The 5D II read noise became something completely and utterly unacceptable to me after that. I've been waiting ever since. Canon has improved their high ISO performance a bit, and for a while, they were kings of the high ISO world (by a small margin). But even that crowning achievement has been toppled, and completely surpassed, by the A7s.

I'm pretty tired of "sitting tight". After so many years...the better part of five years at least...I'm just tired of waiting. Canon had a lot of chances. I decided that the 7D II, for me, was their last chance. I guess we still do have to see what they ACTUALLY stuffed inside that thing...but I have no confidence in Canon anymore. It's been so many years...and I only recently purchased the 5D III (which I'm very happy with for my birds and wildlife...but having used it, it's basically the same as the 5D II at low ISO...which is still utterly unacceptable to me.)

Time for me to add an Exmor to my kit. There just isn't any point in waiting, there isn't any point in hoping anymore. I'm sure Canon will get there, eventually, someday...but who knows when, and who knows how long it will be before they actually finally do. Maybe they finally get there with the 5D IV. If so, I'll happily sell the A7r or whatever I end up picking up, and buy the 5D IV. Or I may simply rent an A7r whenever I have some real time to actually spend enough time out in the mountains to find and photograph beautiful landscapes...and tide myself over that way. Either way...I just can't wait for Canon to do something about their sensor IQ any longer.

I don't think that's an unreasonable position to have. I really want Canon to service all my needs and wants, but there is just this one need they simply aren't servicing. I prefer Canon, I don't want to blend my kit with early models of upcomming technology...but...sometimes things just are what they are.

 

[joejohnbear]

Look up some of Thom Hogan's articles on the approaches of different camera companies to the market. Canon is the most fiscally conservative, offering advances in features that don't cost them as much monetarily in arms races to higher megapixels, etc. Nikon loads up DR and megapixels on their D3100->3200 models and it doesn't necessarily work better at attracting consumers. People like us who are technical and get into the specs, sure, but the average camera user is interested in convenience of use more than anything else. The point and shoot market disappeared and all the camera companies are going for higher price point and shoots and MILC's now. That's probably not the way to "save" the camera industry, and they'll need something more like Apple where they use current technologies to make cameras more convenient than ever, but that's a separate tangent and long topic to cover here. Also something Hogan discusses.

Also, ask an engineer working in product development who's worked closely with marketing, they'll tell you the same thing about releasing products over time. Part of my background is that I was first taught my technical basics by a NASA engineer, so this is part of the knowledge he taught me on how tech companies stay alive.

Like I said, it's more than R&D. Canon took a fiscally conservative approach because of their perception of decreased demand due to the recession, so they released less of their R&D at once because they perceived less demand for cameras period. Not the best move for us when we want more features, but it's one of the things to do when an economy tanks. See Thom Hogan's articles on the recession and how it affects camera companies. Meanwhile, Nikon's autofocusing is good enough, but behind for f/1.4 aperture lenses shot wide open. Plusses and minuses with both companies. Canon's sensor is good enough, but behind on DR and low ISO noise. Their 5DIII high ISO is better than the D800. D810 might push high iso better. A7s is the best on market. Camera bodies continually lap each other, it's no big deal, as I've said before. Sony does better sensors but doesn't do so well having fully well-rounded lens systems and professional services to back it up.

Fair point, but I think DR-commentators aren't giving Canon credit for improving vastly in a lot of other areas. Also, I think the length of the cycle has more to do with the stock market crashing and the recession starting in 2008, the year before the 7D was released I believe.
...

That's rubbish. R&D of cameras takes years, including at least 6 to 12 months just for testing and bug fixing.

Find the announcement of the C300, which was said to be Canon's fastest ever digital camera development. From inception to market, that was 2 to 3 years, so it seems reasonable to expect that a normal DSLR takes 3 to 5 years to develop and bring to market.

That whole idea is bull. If you withhold technology for years when you do release it is obsolete.
The opposite is true. If Canon had superior technology when the economy was at its worse they would have released it. If the economy is bad and you have superior technology you release it at that point. The reason you do it is to crush your competition who are struggling. In the long term the recession wouldn't matter to Canon, they make up any short fall when the economy is good again.

Canon didn't bring it to the market because Canon didn't have it.

Go back four years and you will see that Cameras were not getting hit hard five years ago. Technology reached a point it was comparable with film finally and many people were switching. The economy tanked for Canon when the PS sales died off. Go back and look at profits, Canon's profits went south because of the PS market. They were having great years when the economy was in the tank. Even in the bad years they spent the same on R&D (yen relative to dollar) and made money.

 

[PureClassA]

That makes total sense. Based on what you just said, I don't understand the need to talk switching brands, etc. I think just sit tight, and Canon WILL give you what you want. The grass will always be greener in some way, but I understand, I also agree I wish Canon had more DR, definitely nothing wrong with that now that you put it that way.

LOL. Well, I've been "sitting tight" long time. I picked up a 450D in late 2008, and not long after that I had my eye dead set on a 5D II. Then I saw what the K-5 could do not even a year later. Then the D7000. The 5D II read noise became something completely and utterly unacceptable to me after that. I've been waiting ever since. Canon has improved their high ISO performance a bit, and for a while, they were kings of the high ISO world (by a small margin). But even that crowning achievement has been toppled, and completely surpassed, by the A7s.

I'm pretty tired of "sitting tight". After so many years...the better part of five years at least...I'm just tired of waiting. Canon had a lot of chances. I decided that the 7D II, for me, was their last chance. I guess we still do have to see what they ACTUALLY stuffed inside that thing...but I have no confidence in Canon anymore. It's been so many years...and I only recently purchased the 5D III (which I'm very happy with for my birds and wildlife...but having used it, it's basically the same as the 5D II at low ISO...which is still utterly unacceptable to me.)

Time for me to add an Exmor to my kit. There just isn't any point in waiting, there isn't any point in hoping anymore. I'm sure Canon will get there, eventually, someday...but who knows when, and who knows how long it will be before they actually finally do. Maybe they finally get there with the 5D IV. If so, I'll happily sell the A7r or whatever I end up picking up, and buy the 5D IV. Or I may simply rent an A7r whenever I have some real time to actually spend enough time out in the mountains to find and photograph beautiful landscapes...and tide myself over that way. Either way...I just can't wait for Canon to do something about their sensor IQ any longer.

I don't think that's an unreasonable position to have. I really want Canon to service all my needs and wants, but there is just this one need they simply aren't servicing. I prefer Canon, I don't want to blend my kit with early models of upcomming technology...but...sometimes things just are what they are.

I think everyone can respect that opinion. You have your own personal shooting reasons why Canon doesn't always work the best for you. What I like is that you don't take the flame thrower to Canon for it where so many others on here seem to. Thanks for being an objective voice of reason. Debating the specs and numbers is one thing. Saying everything is a cow pie is another. I love my 6D. It does everything I need. I don't do landscapes like you (btw you're work is amazing, what you've posted). But if I did, I might agree with you that the sony does a little better job there. I've actually been looking a lot at the A7 myself but the 12mp video geared one for a new toy. In any case, let's wait to see what the 7d2 actually YIELDS.

 

[takesome1]

Look up some of Thom Hogan's articles on the approaches of different camera companies to the market. Canon is the most fiscally conservative, offering advances in features that don't cost them as much monetarily in arms races to higher megapixels, etc. Nikon loads up DR and megapixels on their D3100->3200 models and it doesn't necessarily work better at attracting consumers. People like us who are technical and get into the specs, sure, but the average camera user is interested in convenience of use more than anything else. The point and shoot market disappeared and all the camera companies are going for higher price point and shoots and MILC's now. That's probably not the way to "save" the camera industry, and they'll need something more like Apple where they use current technologies to make cameras more convenient than ever, but that's a separate tangent and long topic to cover here. Also something Hogan discusses.

Like I said, it's more than R&D. Canon took a fiscally conservative approach because of their perception of decreased demand due to the recession, so they released less of their R&D at once because they perceived less demand for cameras period. Not the best move for us when we want more features, but it's one of the things to do when an economy tanks. See Thom Hogan's articles on the recession and how it affects camera companies. Meanwhile, Nikon's autofocusing is good enough, but behind for f/1.4 aperture lenses shot wide open. Plusses and minuses with both companies. Canon's sensor is good enough, but behind on DR and low ISO noise. Their 5DIII high ISO is better than the D800. D810 might push high iso better. A7s is the best on market. Camera bodies continually lap each other, it's no big deal, as I've said before. Sony does better sensors but doesn't do so well having fully well-rounded lens systems and professional services to back it up.

Fair point, but I think DR-commentators aren't giving Canon credit for improving vastly in a lot of other areas. Also, I think the length of the cycle has more to do with the stock market crashing and the recession starting in 2008, the year before the 7D was released I believe.
...

That's rubbish. R&D of cameras takes years, including at least 6 to 12 months just for testing and bug fixing.

Find the announcement of the C300, which was said to be Canon's fastest ever digital camera development. From inception to market, that was 2 to 3 years, so it seems reasonable to expect that a normal DSLR takes 3 to 5 years to develop and bring to market.

That whole idea is bull. If you withhold technology for years when you do release it is obsolete.
The opposite is true. If Canon had superior technology when the economy was at its worse they would have released it. If the economy is bad and you have superior technology you release it at that point. The reason you do it is to crush your competition who are struggling. In the long term the recession wouldn't matter to Canon, they make up any short fall when the economy is good again.

Canon didn't bring it to the market because Canon didn't have it.

Go back four years and you will see that Cameras were not getting hit hard five years ago. Technology reached a point it was comparable with film finally and many people were switching. The economy tanked for Canon when the PS sales died off. Go back and look at profits, Canon's profits went south because of the PS market. They were having great years when the economy was in the tank. Even in the bad years they spent the same on R&D (yen relative to dollar) and made money.

I think there would be more reliable analysis in the financial sector on this one.
Witholding your R&D doesn't move your business forward.
Not in the technology sector.