Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed

[Loswr]

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.

One more time: Electronic MF merely allows you to use the camera menus to turn off manual focusing on the few lenses that use focus-by-wire, like the 85L and the STM lenses. The 5DIII and 1D X already have that 'feature'.

 

[tcmatthews]

I am a little disappointed that this thread has dissolved into DR speculation. But not entirely surprised.

The 70D on sensor Phase Detection auto focus is market leading. In fact it is Revolutionary. it is ahead of Sony on sensor Phase Detection by at least a generation.

The Sony Exmor sensor as better sensor read out. They also apply some noise reduction in sensor before going to RAW file.

We do not know what dual DIGIC 6 brings to the table. Likely lower readout noise and improved DR. So how about we put a cork in it until we get real comparison. Or at least go to one of the plethora of other threads that already discuss this.

If Canon puts in cleaner A/D converters there goes the Exmor advantage.

 

[Sporgon]

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 ?

Strewth.

So all the thousands highly regarded professionals using Canon gear are missing a trick are they ?

Here's a link to a good pal of mine who shoots with 1Ds III and 5DIII, and he must be regarded as one of the most successful photographers of modern times, now contracted to work solely for one of the worlds largest automobile companies.

http://www.davidburgess.eu

If what you say is right do you honestly believe that people like this would still be using Canon.

 

[xps]

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.

You are definitively right with purchased sensors!
It is not like in computer business, where you earn enough money to build a new chip factory after some month.
On the other hand, I can understand, that some of CR´s are dissatisfied as other manufacturers do produce Cameras that are superior in specific facts and Canon does not meet this. And Canon is willed to maximise their profits, maybe to finance other developments. Why build a new factory, when we still can sell the current sensor? Or maybe it is true, that Digic 6 is not able to hande 24MP plus (heared at an Nikon workshop)?

Wait for the real announcement and see what not menioned features are insid this body.
And wait for the first real reviews on the product. THEN we can discuss, if this product meets our needs - or not.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I was using wax works to refer to canon video and jpgs. If you compare ML RAW video to the same shot using Canon internally processed video you see how waxy the video is, some combo of too much DNR, too little area sharpening with only edge sharpening, poor de-bayer, poor scaling algorithm, perhaps even some nasty gaussian blur added just to make it look worse than Cxx (although more likely digic is just poor at such things, for instance they chose to use an older Canon DV chip in the Cxx series instead of newer DIGICs, but it's is also possible that they chose poor settings that don't even get the best from DIGIC and I suppose marketing maybe could even have them blur it just a bit to protect 1DC and Cxx, although probably not).

I was also complaining about shadows at low ISO, but that was a different issue (I guess DPP does make them look a bit like wax works too).

I think he's talking about a wax look after pulling shadows etc, but he'll prob have a better answer than I do. I've gotten that before when trying to do something like HDR. Exposure blending takes care of it, but like I said before, it's not ideal in certain situations. I think if your exposure is spot on and DR in the scene is limited, i.e. you use flash to balance with the sky for a portrait, etc, it's not that big of a difference, at least enough for any wedding clients to notice. That said, the high detail and wide dynamic range will be great for nature that jrista shoots where DR can be challenging, and for fashion studio shots only if you have enough time to touch up. The level of detail is actually unflattering if a client has any blemishes, so my opinion is that the D810 is better for things like fashion, but not so much for wedding and family portraits, that deal where volume can be a problem and cost-prohibitive or photoshop / magazine-style touchups.

I thought the wax look everyone complains about was based video compression. No? I love the skin tones I get on my 6D. I haven't felt like I've gotten any compression there or wax. I did recently shoot video on my 6D doing an ice bucket challenge on myself (I'm from New Orleans' so it's our thing) and though it was good, it was kinda worse than I expected. Even with. A 35 sigma art

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.

Thanks. I honestly have no vendetta against Canon. I think most of the Canonites here have lumped me in with "the rest" because I'm not raving about everything Canon anymore. I want what I want, but that doesn't mean I'm going to diss Canon for everything they do. They still make great cameras...however they are falling very, very far behind on that one critical front: raw sensor IQ.

Play with a few Exmor raw images, compare them to pretty much any Canon raw image, and you'll start to see the differences. At first, you don't think it's significant...then you really start pushing exposure around, or you do just a little NR and see a huge improvement even deep into the shadows. Or you even just compare the midtones...and realize how much more color fidelity the Exmor image has without any adjustments at all (this is the wax-works that LTLRI refers to...Canon images, when you get right down into them, have a slightly grayish appearance...it's a lack of color fidelity that images from say a D800 simply don't have...the D800 colors are very rich. My suspicion is that Canon's weakened CFA is bleeding color channels...greens are mixing into reds and blues and vice versa, resulting in more washed out, less pure...and therefor grayish and "waxy"...color.)

I really wish Canon would fix the problem...and if/when they do, I'll be the first in line to pre-order and buy their new high mp, high DR camera when it hits the street. I just...kinda, don't think they will...not for a good long while. :\

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Well look at how well it worked out for Atari to sit on advanced tech.

Granted the computer world was much more dangerous than the camera world is.

But if you think back some years, Canon had the tech to make Nikon look silly and they perhaps could have all but driven them out of business. I suppose it may be just as well they didn't as then we'd never, ever, ever get anything new from now on.

And the wild video sales they had with the 5D2 are no longer there since they squandered that, sure the Cxx has some sales, but the whole sub 10k market they've kind of punted on when they could've have it beyond wrapped up and sales upon sales galore.

The good old five-year-old parroted retort, good one.

Lol, you talk about how Canon should release this tech or that tech years ago, and how their business is hurting from it, and how you're sure that's not how companies should operate, and then I'm the one commentating from the armchair? You're the one who just made an unfounded claim that Canon was doing better than Nikon five years ago (from a technology standpoint, from what I understood)! I've shot night and day with blood and sweat with BOTH camera systems from the past five years. Can you really say the same? You say that a planned product release cycle is bullshit? Go talk to any college professor in hardware development and release, I'm sure they'll tell you the same. But I suppose you're the expert.

He works under a private contractor that contracts to NASA. Gets better pay that way because federal employees working directly for NASA can't make more than a US senator. Way to generalize and project. Five years ago, Canon was NOT better than Nikon. It was the reverse, Nikon had better supertelephotos, better 70-200 VR, better full frame autofocus systems. Canon had a better studio / landscape camera. They're now neck and neck with the D800/810 and Canon's 5DIII, 1DX and telephoto updates. Try BOTH product lineups like I have and THEN comment on how Canon "used to be better than" Nikon. Six years and earlier, Canon had better stuff when Nikon just had the D2x. If you've run a tech company, please bring up that background. It's easier to make comments on how to run a company when you aren't actually doing, same as it's easier to tell how to run a country without actually holding office as the president. I'm just going off of what I've been taught by much smarter people in my life and off of my real-world experience, which is more than what a lot of armchair commentators can say here.

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.

While I have the upmost respect for NASA and what they have accomplished. In my years working with the government I would say they would be the last group I would take business advice from.

Five years ago Canon's product was superior to Nikons. They let Nikon catch up. If what you say is true I am not sure how that plays out as sound business strategy.

Who was commenting on how to run a company? Were talking about actions the company has taken.
I wasn't even saying Canon's actions were wrong, no 20/20 commentary either from me. What I was saying is your arm chair analysis of what Canon did with R&D the last five years is silly. You provided the 20/20 analysis, I commented on that.

 

[dtaylor]

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.

Quick and dirty screenshot comparison: http://s28.postimg.org/6t5fhmhe5/7d_dr.jpg

Crop at 50% with additional LCE in PS: http://s7.postimg.org/oli4obisr/7d_dr_2.jpg

+1 exp and +80 shadows. This equates to +2.5 exp (I matched using just the exp slider to be sure), but if you do it that way you lose the sky.

For sky: -60 highlights which recovers the same highlight detail as -0.5 exp (again I checked with just the exp slider to be sure).

NR was L35 and C50. You can just start to pick up a bit of color splotching at 100%, and of course the 7D can be a bit 'grity' at 100%, but at 16x24" I do not believe that would ever be a problem.

I did process/print a 2 exposure blend of the same scene. But the reason was not due to noise but due to superior tonality/fine detail in the shadows. You get superior tonality/fine detail by blending on Exmor as well. I certainly would have been happy with the single frame version had I not had 2 exposures to blend.

I certainly do not see a 'problem' with Canon's highlight/shadow retention here, and this is the first generation of their 18 MP crop sensor.

Again, Exmor is better. If I ever order an A7 I'll put the time in to do a proper, side by side test. If I order a 7D2 at the same time then I can do old crop, new crop, FF, and Exmor FF. Having had the chance to test shoot Nikon and Sony Exmor bodies I know from experience Exmor will be better in shadow latitude.

But I also know from experience that a real world test will not show the drama difference that you get when severely underexposing and/or turning off all NR. The differences are simply not worth all the words the DRoners have posted in this forum. Canon sensors can handle the majority of contrasty scenes just fine. And the difference between being forced to HDR with Canon and forced to HDR with Exmor is much smaller then the DRoners would have anyone believe.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

D750 announced formally

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/09/12/nikon-d750-promo-product-tour-hands-on-videos.aspx/#more-80352

arggh no 4k, Nikon themselves played that too conservatively, it could've been a go to feature to steal the DSLR video market away from Canon (although in Nikon's case it is possible they simply don't have the chips to pull off 4k in a DSLR of this type; Canon definitely has the ability)

so now you know Canon marketing won't dare put 4k in even the 5D4 (if they actually were wise enough, they'd toss 4k into it, use a new sensor line and put out a 39MP 6fps (7fps if more daring) 4k compressed+processed 1080pRAW 7D2 AF beast that, combined with their lenses and name, could make everyone forget about any other brand for mid and high-end range, but it seems more and more unlikely, instead they will just sit and wait until every other last maker offers 4k and then give 4k three years later and maybe give exmor-like low ISO for the 5D5 or 5D6, maybe, I mean I hope not but)

Anyway, should it be no 4k and no-exmor-like low ISO and no more money from Canon from me for 5D4 or anything else. I'll put my money to other uses and mixes of other brands.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Again you don´t seem to get it. So try it yourself.

Underexposure by two Stops to get a small noise advantage is not a good thing to do.

You are missing his point about the 'iso-less' sensor/ADC setups.

 

[joejohnbear]

Well I'm not neccessarily in support of it either. But lowering your price to compete and cutting each other's throats isn't a good way to do business either.

Well look at how well it worked out for Atari to sit on advanced tech.

Granted the computer world was much more dangerous than the camera world is.

But if you think back some years, Canon had the tech to make Nikon look silly and they perhaps could have all but driven them out of business. I suppose it may be just as well they didn't as then we'd never, ever, ever get anything new from now on.

And the wild video sales they had with the 5D2 are no longer there since they squandered that, sure the Cxx has some sales, but the whole sub 10k market they've kind of punted on when they could've have it beyond wrapped up and sales upon sales galore.

The good old five-year-old parroted retort, good one.

Lol, you talk about how Canon should release this tech or that tech years ago, and how their business is hurting from it, and how you're sure that's not how companies should operate, and then I'm the one commentating from the armchair? You're the one who just made an unfounded claim that Canon was doing better than Nikon five years ago (from a technology standpoint, from what I understood)! I've shot night and day with blood and sweat with BOTH camera systems from the past five years. Can you really say the same? You say that a planned product release cycle is bullshit? Go talk to any college professor in hardware development and release, I'm sure they'll tell you the same. But I suppose you're the expert.

He works under a private contractor that contracts to NASA. Gets better pay that way because federal employees working directly for NASA can't make more than a US senator. Way to generalize and project. Five years ago, Canon was NOT better than Nikon. It was the reverse, Nikon had better supertelephotos, better 70-200 VR, better full frame autofocus systems. Canon had a better studio / landscape camera. They're now neck and neck with the D800/810 and Canon's 5DIII, 1DX and telephoto updates. Try BOTH product lineups like I have and THEN comment on how Canon "used to be better than" Nikon. Six years and earlier, Canon had better stuff when Nikon just had the D2x. If you've run a tech company, please bring up that background. It's easier to make comments on how to run a company when you aren't actually doing, same as it's easier to tell how to run a country without actually holding office as the president. I'm just going off of what I've been taught by much smarter people in my life and off of my real-world experience, which is more than what a lot of armchair commentators can say here.

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.

While I have the upmost respect for NASA and what they have accomplished. In my years working with the government I would say they would be the last group I would take business advice from.

Five years ago Canon's product was superior to Nikons. They let Nikon catch up. If what you say is true I am not sure how that plays out as sound business strategy.

Who was commenting on how to run a company? Were talking about actions the company has taken.
I wasn't even saying Canon's actions were wrong, no 20/20 commentary either from me. What I was saying is your arm chair analysis of what Canon did with R&D the last five years is silly. You provided the 20/20 analysis, I commented on that.

 

[Sporgon]

Better data is better data.

This is the crux of the argument. Most of the time there is no difference in the quality of data between the two systems. The difference only manifests itself in specific and quite extreme circumstances.

dtaylor's example is a good demonstration of an extreme EV range + dark coloured subjects in the under exposed area that still isn't extreme enough to cause much of a problem even for an old 7D, yet your reply is to basically say it's not under exposed enough.

If you love under exposure get a camera with an Exmor sensor.

 

[dtaylor]

DTaylor, on the other hand, seems utterly incapable of even acknowledging that there IS a meaningful difference between Canon data and Nikon or Sony data.

Do not lie about what I have said again.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

However;

Go back five years ... Would you have seen the DxO number fan boys and the Nikonian trolls on this website bashing Canon's sensors?

Well, these forums don't go back to 2009. They launched in July, 2010. So, here's a post from about one month after CR Forums first launched...

Gaaarbage.

Given this event, should Canon just throw in the damn towel? They've been floundering since 1D3, 1Ds3, and the 50D; they've had time enough and resources enough to retake superiority from Nikon.

Meanwhile, the Nikon D7000 will add another stop of ISO performance...

Seriously, I regret deeply that I did not buy a D90 and jump on the Nikon wagon; sure, Canon has slightly better resolution at low-ISOs, but Nikon <--- dynamic range, very high ISO performance on the D3s, cheaper budget lenses (you don't have to pay for a lens hood on top of it!), better crop lenses (35mm prime, instead of fitting a .55x converter to reduce image quality on a 50mm 1.8, better wide angle crop lenses)...

I just can't see where people on the Nikon side would be jealous of Canon equipment. You get 50% more MP on the 5D2 and 7D/60D/550D, but that's it. You throw in high dynamic range at ISO 100 and you get banding.

So the Nikonian trolls have been here since the beginning. However, I didn't coin the term 'DRones' until 2013...

Trolls have been on the internet since the day the first chat room opened. The Trolls had far less to talk about in 2010 when it comes to Nikon vs Canon. They became real bad when the D800 was released.

You suggested we wouldn't see trolls bashing Canon sensors here a few years ago. I showed the opposite. Now you come back with, well they were here, but they had less to talk about.

Never admit you are wrong when you can make excuses instead. Great motto to live by, good job. :

trolls post things that they know not to be true (which you have been known to do) and about things that don't concern them for the sole purpose to upset people or hurt people while they sit back and then laugh

What does that have to do with long time Canon users pointing things out that they hope Canon gets around to improving? Or pointing absurd little things like AutoISO that marketing has engineering cripple for no good reason?

 

[Eldar]

Come on guys, we´re on page 40 now. Let´s have an ambition to keep it going past 50 before the end of the day. Still lots of unused off-topic arguments and insults to throw in

 

[Don Haines]

I really don't understand what the fuss is about....

What we have here is someone wants some aspect of their next camera to be better than what they have now... WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE ARGUING!!!!!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

They do have the tech to make sensors that would do much better for low ISO DR. They don't seem to have the ability to make them since they won't outsource all compact sensors and move DSLR sensors onto the better fabs or pay a ton of money for new ones for DSLR sensors. So they are sort of and sort of not withholding in that sense.

Stuff like 4k they are clearly holding back. Even 1080p quality they are mucking up on anything but high end. it took a third party hack to get top quality 1080p out of even the 5D3 (with that hack is does deliver a pretty awesome 1080p though, with the hack and providing you are willing to deal with giant RAW the cam is pretty amazing for 1080p, much better than any Nikon DSLR has provided). And all the video usability features, proper AutoISO, playing games with micro focus adjust. They held back better AF from anything but 1 series for years and years. The 5D3 was the first time they relented and now the 7D2 will be the second. Back in the earlier FF days (shortly before the D700) they were asked if they plan to ever put FF in a body with speed and they said haha no why should we are kings we have no need we could but we won't hahahahaha we are kings we will sit on the mountain as is we are kings.

 

[xps]

Come on guys, we´re on page 40 now. Let´s have an ambition to keep it going past 50 before the end of the day. Still lots of unused off-topic arguments and insults to throw in

I looked at Mr. Sporgons HP and found some incredible good looking pictures. 3 pages have been written in meantime. If there are other good HPs, please tell me! Then I will look in this topic again and we will be @ page 50.
Now we know how fanatism is created ???

 

[Loswr]

Maybe one day I, too, will find DReligion, kneel before the Holy Exmor, and Mikael can retroactively become my Prophet with Dean as his disciple.

Very clever. I never could stand Mikael...I wouldn't stand him today. As I said, he is the epitome of anti-canon hate. The guy was a twit. Dean would probably eat Mikael alive, because dean, being an alpha bully, wouldn't stand for another bully being within proximity...so I don't see any discipleship there.

Yeah, that's most likely true.

I know you, and unfocused, dtaylor and a number of other members here don't think it matters. Fine, that's your opinion. Your free to have your opinion. And we won't call you names. Not everyone agrees with you guys on that front. To some people, for some types of photography, it DOES matter. Not necessarily so much to the end results...but to the workload between the camera and the end result.

I don't recall saying I think it doesn't matter. It does matter, just not to everyone. In fact, it only matters to a small minority.

Is it so much to ask to just let them (the them who aren't saying Canon sucks at everything, just the them who have some legitimate complaint about Canon technology, those who would prefer to have BETTER Canon technology that serves their needs-that-are-different-than-yours...there are quite a few of us here) have their opinion without the name calling (i.e. DRones), at the very least? Is it too much to ask that you give others the freedom to have their opinion?

You have complete freedom to express your opinion. Pick any thread you want about a Canon camera, feel free to bring up Canon's lack of DR. You know what'll happen, but you're free to do it anyway.

The thing is, when have I argued that more DR isn't beneficial in some situations? When have I stated that Canon sensors don't have less DR that SoNikon sensors? I'm far from alone there. We get it, we really do. Ok, so now that we've acknowledged it...then what? The disagreement isn't about the differences between the sensors, it's about the significance, the impact, and the relevance of those differences. Repeated discussion and repeated demonstration of the technical differences isn't going to convince anyone of the importance of those differences. Yet...those discussions and demonstrations are still repeated...over and over...and over again. After a while, it becomes droning...droning about DR...DRoning.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

What do you mean bu the lowering your price to compete comment?

Well I'm not neccessarily in support of it either. But lowering your price to compete and cutting each other's throats isn't a good way to do business either.

Well look at how well it worked out for Atari to sit on advanced tech.

Granted the computer world was much more dangerous than the camera world is.

But if you think back some years, Canon had the tech to make Nikon look silly and they perhaps could have all but driven them out of business. I suppose it may be just as well they didn't as then we'd never, ever, ever get anything new from now on.

And the wild video sales they had with the 5D2 are no longer there since they squandered that, sure the Cxx has some sales, but the whole sub 10k market they've kind of punted on when they could've have it beyond wrapped up and sales upon sales galore.

The good old five-year-old parroted retort, good one.

Lol, you talk about how Canon should release this tech or that tech years ago, and how their business is hurting from it, and how you're sure that's not how companies should operate, and then I'm the one commentating from the armchair? You're the one who just made an unfounded claim that Canon was doing better than Nikon five years ago (from a technology standpoint, from what I understood)! I've shot night and day with blood and sweat with BOTH camera systems from the past five years. Can you really say the same? You say that a planned product release cycle is bullshit? Go talk to any college professor in hardware development and release, I'm sure they'll tell you the same. But I suppose you're the expert.

He works under a private contractor that contracts to NASA. Gets better pay that way because federal employees working directly for NASA can't make more than a US senator. Way to generalize and project. Five years ago, Canon was NOT better than Nikon. It was the reverse, Nikon had better supertelephotos, better 70-200 VR, better full frame autofocus systems. Canon had a better studio / landscape camera. They're now neck and neck with the D800/810 and Canon's 5DIII, 1DX and telephoto updates. Try BOTH product lineups like I have and THEN comment on how Canon "used to be better than" Nikon. Six years and earlier, Canon had better stuff when Nikon just had the D2x. If you've run a tech company, please bring up that background. It's easier to make comments on how to run a company when you aren't actually doing, same as it's easier to tell how to run a country without actually holding office as the president. I'm just going off of what I've been taught by much smarter people in my life and off of my real-world experience, which is more than what a lot of armchair commentators can say here.

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.

While I have the upmost respect for NASA and what they have accomplished. In my years working with the government I would say they would be the last group I would take business advice from.

Five years ago Canon's product was superior to Nikons. They let Nikon catch up. If what you say is true I am not sure how that plays out as sound business strategy.

Who was commenting on how to run a company? Were talking about actions the company has taken.
I wasn't even saying Canon's actions were wrong, no 20/20 commentary either from me. What I was saying is your arm chair analysis of what Canon did with R&D the last five years is silly. You provided the 20/20 analysis, I commented on that.

 

[dtaylor]

The irony is that while certain immature individuals like you staunchly refuse to acknowledge the advantages of having more DR,

Yet another strawman :