Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed

[joejohnbear]

You are correct, in these scenarios, higher DR is important, but you still need to exposure blend in that case too with the single exposure. Otherwise you get the HDR effect on your solid edges. Make no mistake, I loved the higher DR on Nikon's cameras since the D700 and newer. I'm just saying that there are tons of talented landscape photographers who shoot scenes and get by fine using bracketing and reverse grad ND / grad ND filters. There are no doubt scenarios that would be helped by a single exposure with a non-gradual transition, i.e. light through moving leaves as you said, but it's not stopping them from creating great art otherwise. Most people don't know how to properly exposure blend though and just depend on sliders.

It's a problem, sure, but if you shoot landscape, it's not an issue if you know how to properly exposure blend.

I'm not much of a landscape photog, but in my limited experience it's surprising how many parts of the nature move if you look at them @20mp 100% crop. Of course pasting another exposure of sky over a landscape is easy and there are good programs to do exposure blending for you. But if low- and high dr parts get intertwined like sun through leaves, it gets tricky - or am I mistaken?

 

[unfocused]

It's a problem, sure, but if you shoot landscape, it's not an issue if you know how to properly exposure blend. That's what fine art landscape photographers have been doing for over a decade now. High DR just makes things more convenient.

sure many shots didn't need to DR, but plenty enough along the way could've been helped for sure

Waiting for real world examples of what we are all missing ;D

Go shooting in mountains where you've got snow and sunshine hitting the snow and shadows deep in the valley. There you want to keep "detail in the snow" (so that you don't just have big white areas) plus you also want to keep shadows from and in trees, etc.

Is that real world enough for you or are you going to say "Post a picture or it doesn't exist"?

Since I've shot scenes like that and not had a problem: pictures or it didn't happen.

I'm sick of words. I'm sick of opinions. I'm sick of theorizing. I'm sick of people misremembering underexposure tests as "real world normal exposure and there was banding!"

Pics or it didn't happen. If I was a mod it would be: pics or you are banned for a week

Since you claim all of these things are possible, why don't you lead from the front and show us how it is done?

Where are your pictures showing that Canon doesn't have a problem with keeping highlights and shadows?

Lots of people saying Canon's cameras can't do it and you're insisting that they can.

Show us.

Is it time to start one of these yet? Try to keep it to one line. It looks better.

 

[Sporgon]

This thread is hilarious. It's better than Duracell rabbit, because it's going and going ang going and going... (repeat ad libitum/nauseam)

Just another great day on Canonrumers. ;D

You guys are a hoot!

One thing is for sure, that "typing at the speed of thought" thing isn't working out too well. There is a lot more typing than thought going on.

;D. ;D. ;D

Honestly, I'm cancelling my Sky TV subscription; I just don't need it for entertainment anymore.

 

[dtaylor]

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

Not if I used a D800.

Go ahead and put together a portfolio of product shots exposed like that and see who hires you :

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

Please, explain to me how it's a "blown" exposure. How, exactly, would you perform that exposure on the 5D III, and perserve both the highlights and the shadows?

I already pointed out that he could have shot +2 or +3 with recovery and produced a far better image. You're grasping at a thin little line on the histogram generated by the pixels in the white label which are gray in his underexposure and which have no detail to speak of in any case, and claiming its ETTR. I actually laughed out loud when I read your histogram analysis. It's no wonder you are having trouble with noise and banding.

Nearly the entire image is bunched up in the left 3rd of the histogram. +2 would have been vastly better. I would imagine that +3 with highlight recovery would have worked as well if the shadow was that important or going to be pushed later.

He clearly shot to expose/emphasis banding. Which is fine. We all get it. Canon sensors have deep shadow noise and banding, Exmor do not. It matters...a bit...sometimes. But it's flat out dishonest for you to pretend that this was 'proof' that normal Canon exposures which aren't even pushed will have banding. There isn't even banding visible in that shot until you bump exposure in ACR!

How about you explain to me what you think ETTR is, or how it works?

How about I'm not paid to teach you and I already provided a Google link.

For the edification of all of us here? Also, please explain how these exposures are not properly ETTRed?

I can sum that up with 3 words: Your other right. ;D

 

[win nut]

I am waiting see how the digic 6 adc performs with the 20.2. What I want to know is did they keep the joystick???

 

[Larry]

The words are censored, nbd. I used it for effect, but if it's not your cup of tea, I understand.

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? :

Thank you for the civil response, ...I was not sure whether or not to expect one.

This thread is providing fun for many, with plenty of fee-wheeling give and take, and is quite informative as well, if wheat can be separated from chaff .

I am smart enough to know that the exchanges are well above my tech understanding, and so have not attempted to make any contribution re. the main subject. And I note that no one seems to think my (admittedly off-topic) comments on the level of discourse worthy of support. Still, since I have a bit of time, I will call you on a few points, in the nit-picking spirit of this thread:

1. "words are censored" - Not all, even by your definition, ...check your post #64.

2. Effective "censorship" - An image of a female torso with the chest area covered by a black panel is censored, ...you cannot see or know with certainty what is covered. The (horrible, dangerous!)subject is effectively censored.

The letter "S" with accompanying ellipsis, if the reader is grammatically erudite to any degree, quite effectively and clearly reveals, rather than "hides" the subject, ...you are knowingly throwing you-know-what in the game :.
Camouflage cloth with an image of what is beneath is faux, no? "S..." will do as a synonym (rather than obfuscation) for " a certain mushy, odorous substance which emanates from a posterior body orifice". I. e., "S..." by any other name smells the same.

Reading the other posts in your threads should indicate that such usage is not the norm here. I find no other examples of the S and F usage, contrasting with your 19 usages in 13 posts (by my count, in your profile post file).

3. use for "emphasis" - Yes, many(most?) of us (myself included!) use these terms occasionally for emphasis, ...but it would seem that we have somewhat different standards re. the appropriate places for such usage. Also, frequent, rather than infrequent use deprives them of their novel or "impact" emphasis effect. And continuous frequent use tends to make such use habitual(!) so that use can easily be inadvertent rather than deliberate.

My intent is to suggest that this forum will not be enhanced if the bar is lowered so that what is now an anomaly should become the norm. The inter-net has numerous examples which to me illustrate that there are indeed more and less "classy" places for idea exchange, ...I am simply voting that we preserve the prevailing status of this one.

Thanks for all your tech input, ...very interesting.

Apologies if the tone of these comments strikes you as pedantic, ...sometimes the only way to get something said, is to say it!

I have had my say. To avoid possible digression into hostility, I will not respond further on this subject.

Your comments (or those of others) welcome.

 

[joejohnbear]

Lol, you really should try this fun service when posting replies here: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ettr

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

Not if I used a D800.

Go ahead and put together a portfolio of product shots exposed like that and see who hires you :

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

Please, explain to me how it's a "blown" exposure. How, exactly, would you perform that exposure on the 5D III, and perserve both the highlights and the shadows?

I already pointed out that he could have shot +2 or +3 with recovery and produced a far better image. You're grasping at a thin little line on the histogram generated by the pixels in the white label which are gray in his underexposure and which have no detail to speak of in any case, and claiming its ETTR. I actually laughed out loud when I read your histogram analysis. It's no wonder you are having trouble with noise and banding.

Nearly the entire image is bunched up in the left 3rd of the histogram. +2 would have been vastly better. I would imagine that +3 with highlight recovery would have worked as well if the shadow was that important or going to be pushed later.

He clearly shot to expose/emphasis banding. Which is fine. We all get it. Canon sensors have deep shadow noise and banding, Exmor do not. It matters...a bit...sometimes. But it's flat out dishonest for you to pretend that this was 'proof' that normal Canon exposures which aren't even pushed will have banding. There isn't even banding visible in that shot until you bump exposure in ACR!

How about you explain to me what you think ETTR is, or how it works?

How about I'm not paid to teach you and I already provided a Google link.

For the edification of all of us here? Also, please explain how these exposures are not properly ETTRed?

I can sum that up with 3 words: Your other right. ;D

 

[Steve]

Ahhhh, yes. That explains ZigJakeyDean posting Diet Coke box DRivel in a thread on Canon LCD color tones.

Have you actually downloaded those RAW files and manipulated them? I did. The NEF is hilariously better than the CR2. You can see the difference in 5 seconds with a simple exposure comp adjustment. The NEF holds together like a champ and the CR2 just falls apart into noise and banding. Is it fixable with good NR? Sure, probably. But it is a fact that you just don't have to do that sort of work with the Sony sensor. Wailing and gnashing your teeth against all the people pointing out this fact doesn't change that its a fact - the Exmor is a better sensor.

And just to head you off here, I have all Canon gear and I'm not going to switch. I like Canon's stuff and it performs well for what I like to shoot. Would I like to have that Sony sensor in my Canon camera body though? Absolutely. No question. I don't even understand why it pisses you off so much that Canon fans want this kind of quality in Canon sensors and are bummed they don't have it. As far as I can tell, the trolls in these threads are you and dtaylor plugging your ears, shouting "Market Share! Market Share!" over and over again and making snarky comments about DRones in every other thread on this forum whether anyone has mentioned The Company That Shall Not Be Named or not. Its far more tiresome than the people who want Canon sensors to improve.

 

[joejohnbear]

It's called the internet. I like to blow off steam on some people who I suspect have no shooting experience other than reading forum posts. It amazes me how many people who have never shot at a high level (professional or amateur high level) with Nikon for an extended amount of time have such bigoted opinions on Canon vs. Nikon. My language was meant to troll the trolls, but I know it just ends up feeding them anyways. Some people do really deserve the language, such as the poster who claimed that he shot sports with a T2i and supertelephotos, and then proceeded to delete his post claiming he had such equipment. Just a kid in a basement, and not exactly one I have much sympathy for.

If you've noticed, I've toned down my language in recent posts, but I'm not going to delete what I said in the past. The language has led to some unnecessary animosity with some great posters, and I apologize for that and like to clarify any misunderstandings caused by it, but some people genuinely deserve to get smacked up a little when they try to spread blatantly false or misleading information because they have some kind of vendetta going on.

The words are censored, nbd. I used it for effect, but if it's not your cup of tea, I understand.

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? :

Thank you for the civil response, ...I was not sure whether or not to expect one.

This thread is providing fun for many, with plenty of fee-wheeling give and take, and is quite informative as well, if wheat can be separated from chaff .

I am smart enough to know that the exchanges are well above my tech understanding, and so have not attempted to make any contribution re. the main subject. And I note that no one seems to think my (admittedly off-topic) comments on the level of discourse worthy of support. Still, since I have a bit of time, I will call you on a few points, in the nit-picking spirit of this thread:

1. "words are censored" - Not all, even by your definition, ...check your post #64.

2. Effective "censorship" - An image of a female torso with the chest area covered by a black panel is censored, ...you cannot see or know with certainty what is covered. The (horrible, dangerous!)subject is effectively censored.

The letter "S" with accompanying ellipsis, if the reader is grammatically erudite to any degree, quite effectively and clearly reveals, rather than "hides" the subject, ...you are knowingly throwing you-know-what in the game :.
Camouflage cloth with an image of what is beneath is faux, no? "S..." will do as a synonym (rather than obfuscation) for " a certain mushy, odorous substance which emanates from a posterior body orifice". I. e., "S..." by any other name smells the same.

Reading the other posts in your threads should indicate that such usage is not the norm here. I find no other examples of the S and F usage, contrasting with your 19 usages in 13 posts (by my count, in your profile post file).

3. use for "emphasis" - Yes, many(most?) of us (myself included!) use these terms occasionally for emphasis, ...but it would seem that we have somewhat different standards re. the appropriate places for such usage. Also, frequent, rather than infrequent use deprives them of their novel or "impact" emphasis effect. And continuous frequent use tends to make such use habitual(!) so that use can easily be inadvertent rather than deliberate.

My intent is to suggest that this forum will not be enhanced if the bar is lowered so that what is now an anomaly should become the norm. The inter-net has numerous examples which to me illustrate that there are indeed more and less "classy" places for idea exchange, ...I am simply voting that we preserve the prevailing status of this one.

Thanks for all your tech input, ...very interesting.

Apologies if the tone of these comments strikes you as pedantic, ...sometimes the only way to get something said, is to say it!

I have had my say. To avoid possible digression into hostility, I will not respond further on this subject.

Your comments (or those of others) welcome.

 

[joejohnbear]

There's a reason Canon doesn't use Sony sensors. It's bad for having a competitive edge, like Apple oursourcing their LCD parts to Samsung, which resulted in Samsung turning around and becoming their largest competitor using the same tech. Canon's a little behind on their R&D, or they're with-holding it for some reason we're not completely aware of, and I think frustrations from people on both sides - those who are tired of this, and those who are tired of the vocalness of the first group - are what's causing the animosity. Some statements from both sides, name-calling or those threatening to jump ship and saying controversial statements that Canon is basically going to die / isn't competitive anymore are what feeds the fire.

Ahhhh, yes. That explains ZigJakeyDean posting Diet Coke box DRivel in a thread on Canon LCD color tones.

Have you actually downloaded those RAW files and manipulated them? I did. The NEF is hilariously better than the CR2. You can see the difference in 5 seconds with a simple exposure comp adjustment. The NEF holds together like a champ and the CR2 just falls apart into noise and banding. Is it fixable with good NR? Sure, probably. But it is a fact that you just don't have to do that sort of work with the Sony sensor. Wailing and gnashing your teeth against all the people pointing out this fact doesn't change that its a fact - the Exmor is a better sensor.

And just to head you off here, I have all Canon gear and I'm not going to switch. I like Canon's stuff and it performs well for what I like to shoot. Would I like to have that Sony sensor in my Canon camera body though? Absolutely. No question. I don't even understand why it pisses you off so much that Canon fans want this kind of quality in Canon sensors and are bummed they don't have it. As far as I can tell, the trolls in these threads are you and dtaylor plugging your ears, shouting "Market Share! Market Share!" over and over again and making snarky comments about DRones in every other thread on this forum whether anyone has mentioned The Company That Shall Not Be Named or not. Its far more tiresome than the people who want Canon sensors to improve.

 

[takesome1]

I just mentioned that Canon took a fiscally conservative approach to releasing their products. Nothing wrong with that. The other guy kept calling it "bull." So...he started it. ;D

We've now had several pages where the debate boiled down to a debate about semantics. Semantics about a point that was about something that really didn't have anything to do with the 7D II specs that have been confirmed.

Are you guys having fun yet?

Okay, you was a tad faster. From previous discussion it seems that he who bought Nikon camera knows more about market. :-D DOH I´m pretty lost here, but what did I expect....

I don't know what the bickering is about. I just dug through a bunch of financial reports for these two companies.

From what I can tell, Canon has had around a 10% loss in ILC sales last year. Nikon has had nearly a 50% gain in ILC sales last year. Canon is projecting another 9% total loss in ILC sales this year. Nikon is projecting further gains. Canon currently sells somewhere around 30-45% more DSLRs than Nikon does. BOTH companies realized significant losses in P&S cameras last year...around 30% for Canon, over 50% for Nikon.

That's the simplest "state of the market" that I can reduce the data to. Canon is still selling more, but they are projecting a loss, while Nikon is projecting growth (not much this year, but 2015 and 2016 they are projecting a ton). Nikon is actually attributing the bulk of their growth to MILCs, rather than DSLRs, which is interesting...but other than that...that's it. That's the current state of the market.

I don't know that anything else matters...who cares what Canon or Nikon did in 2008? Were six years on from then...that's a LONG time in any technological world.

I will give you 50% accuracy on that statement. I did say your post was "bull". Is Canon a bit conservative, sure. Do they withhold upgrades and technology waiting on the market to improve as you claim they do? I have to call "bull" on that part of it.

 

[Alino]

A nice feature could be to couple the intervalometer to their evasive 'Electronic manual focus" to make stacking. As I made a lot of butterflies eggs, it could be nice for me.

 

[dtaylor]

You are trying to redirect the debate here. Your trying to undermine my credibility by making claims I don't know what I'm talking about. I repeatedly back up my claims with actual evidence.

You don't know how to interpret the 'evidence' because either a) you don't know what you are talking about here, or b) you are so stubborn and so bent on proving what you've already decided to be true that you will defend any and every silly thing.

It's like when you posted a bunch of links to HDR images on 500px as 'evidence' of Exmor shadow recovery in landscapes. Multiple people told you they were rather obvious HDRs. Instead of having some humility about it you went off on a long (surprise!) rant about how irrelevant details proved...just PROVED...they were not HDR. "When you see EXIF info that means it's NEVER HDR." So sure of yourself. So positive. Right up until I pointed out some of the tools which retain EXIF info :

As for your credibility, it's long gone. You are a DRoner who has never spent any time with an Exmor camera even though it would be cheap for you to add one and even though supposedly it's the holy grail of IQ. In other threads Exmor owners have said essentially the same thing I have. Shadows are better, that's sometimes useful, would be nice if Canon changed their ADC arrangement...but it's not the dramatic difference in real life as you imagine it to be. But even though they OWN the cameras their words mean nothing to you.

Listening to you talk about what Exmor means is like listening to a lecture by a teenage virgin on what sex with a porn star is like. When you've actually touched one...an Exmor that is...let us know.

 

[Loswr]

What I want to know is did they keep the joystick???

The 7DII will have the multicontroller (aka joystick).

 

[dtaylor]

How about a dedicated PDAF system with 65 cross-type spread all across the frame? Or the 150K-pixel RGB+IR metering sensor? Oh, wait...no one cares about that sensor. :

Baby 1DX down to the iTR AF for $1,800. Yeah...who would call that innovation? You can shoot your lens cap at 10 fps but if you can't push the images +5 stops without noise then it's all for not, isn't it? ;D

 

[xps]

1800$ confirmed?

 

[joejohnbear]

And you would have what insider knowledge to debate that point? What ties to hardware manufacture and distribution?

I just mentioned that Canon took a fiscally conservative approach to releasing their products. Nothing wrong with that. The other guy kept calling it "bull." So...he started it. ;D

We've now had several pages where the debate boiled down to a debate about semantics. Semantics about a point that was about something that really didn't have anything to do with the 7D II specs that have been confirmed.

Are you guys having fun yet?

Okay, you was a tad faster. From previous discussion it seems that he who bought Nikon camera knows more about market. :-D DOH I´m pretty lost here, but what did I expect....

I don't know what the bickering is about. I just dug through a bunch of financial reports for these two companies.

From what I can tell, Canon has had around a 10% loss in ILC sales last year. Nikon has had nearly a 50% gain in ILC sales last year. Canon is projecting another 9% total loss in ILC sales this year. Nikon is projecting further gains. Canon currently sells somewhere around 30-45% more DSLRs than Nikon does. BOTH companies realized significant losses in P&S cameras last year...around 30% for Canon, over 50% for Nikon.

That's the simplest "state of the market" that I can reduce the data to. Canon is still selling more, but they are projecting a loss, while Nikon is projecting growth (not much this year, but 2015 and 2016 they are projecting a ton). Nikon is actually attributing the bulk of their growth to MILCs, rather than DSLRs, which is interesting...but other than that...that's it. That's the current state of the market.

I don't know that anything else matters...who cares what Canon or Nikon did in 2008? Were six years on from then...that's a LONG time in any technological world.

I will give you 50% accuracy on that statement. I did say your post was "bull". Is Canon a bit conservative, sure. Do they withhold upgrades and technology waiting on the market to improve as you claim they do? I have to call "bull" on that part of it.

 

[x-vision]

Do you have real world, optimally produced and processed shots with RAW files and production notes yet?

Let me summarize your stance for everyone to understand.

So, you don't accept that Exmor sensors are superior than Canon sensors based on:

• you don't accept formal test results from DxO and the likes
• you dismiss any real-world example that is given to you
• you think that it's fair to compare differently processed files

In short, if we ignore the formal tests and the real-works samples - and then process files differently - we can show that Exmor is no better than Canon.
That's where you stand, basically.

And to top it all, you are doing all this spin-doctoring on Canon's behalf totally for free.

Wow. I haven't seen such devotion and dedication to a brand.
They have a special name for guys like you - Canon bitches fanboys, right ?

 

[takesome1]

And you would have what insider knowledge to debate that point? What ties to hardware manufacture and distribution?

I just mentioned that Canon took a fiscally conservative approach to releasing their products. Nothing wrong with that. The other guy kept calling it "bull." So...he started it. ;D

We've now had several pages where the debate boiled down to a debate about semantics. Semantics about a point that was about something that really didn't have anything to do with the 7D II specs that have been confirmed.

Are you guys having fun yet?

Okay, you was a tad faster. From previous discussion it seems that he who bought Nikon camera knows more about market. :-D DOH I´m pretty lost here, but what did I expect....

I don't know what the bickering is about. I just dug through a bunch of financial reports for these two companies.

From what I can tell, Canon has had around a 10% loss in ILC sales last year. Nikon has had nearly a 50% gain in ILC sales last year. Canon is projecting another 9% total loss in ILC sales this year. Nikon is projecting further gains. Canon currently sells somewhere around 30-45% more DSLRs than Nikon does. BOTH companies realized significant losses in P&S cameras last year...around 30% for Canon, over 50% for Nikon.

That's the simplest "state of the market" that I can reduce the data to. Canon is still selling more, but they are projecting a loss, while Nikon is projecting growth (not much this year, but 2015 and 2016 they are projecting a ton). Nikon is actually attributing the bulk of their growth to MILCs, rather than DSLRs, which is interesting...but other than that...that's it. That's the current state of the market.

I don't know that anything else matters...who cares what Canon or Nikon did in 2008? Were six years on from then...that's a LONG time in any technological world.

I will give you 50% accuracy on that statement. I did say your post was "bull". Is Canon a bit conservative, sure. Do they withhold upgrades and technology waiting on the market to improve as you claim they do? I have to call "bull" on that part of it.

Since you made the claim, who is the insider you know at Canon that told you this?
You have third parties that may mention it, but who at Canon?

 

[Steve]

There's a reason Canon doesn't use Sony sensors. It's bad for having a competitive edge, like Apple oursourcing their LCD parts to Samsung, which resulted in Samsung turning around and becoming their largest competitor using the same tech. Canon's a little behind on their R&D, or they're with-holding it for some reason we're not completely aware of, and I think frustrations from people on both sides - those who are tired of this, and those who are tired of the vocalness of the first group - are what's causing the animosity. Some statements from both sides, name-calling or those threatening to jump ship and saying controversial statements that Canon is basically going to die / isn't competitive anymore are what feeds the fire.

I totally understand why Canon doesn't outsource sensor production to Sony. I meant more "Sony equivalent". I honestly do not care at all about the argument or taking sides on it because, as I said, Canon is doing what I want it to do for what I shoot, for the most part. I'm just getting super exasperated with a couple people here straight up denying reality. Its like watching an evolution or climate change debate.