Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

Magic Lantern is the best gift you can give to your Canon DSLR. Completely transforms the camera and ups its value at least by 100% utterly reliable too, 1 million cameras using it and counting with no single brick, and can be removed without a trace. It's just a must for any Canon user even if you're going to use something trivial like the intervalometer sometime, etc..

When I use a Canon DSLR without ML, I feel the camera is crippled.

 

[DominoDude]

Since this thread already is slightly sidestepped...
Does anyone know if their has been any request to the admins regarding setting up a section specifically for all things Magic Lantern? As it is now one has to search for ML and/or Magic Lantern and get posts that are spread out rather thin over both time and subjects. I would guess that the chances of keeping a clean forum section would be somewhat enhanced if the subject had a place to live.

Started to experiment a little on my own with my 50D, but sometimes I want to ask questions where I hope I can get swift and useful feedback. That would be here, and not on ML's own forums.

What do you think?

 

[privatebydesign]

Canon will do what it believes is in the best interests of its shareholders in the mid to long term, coincidentally they very often know better than us what we actually need.

Having moved to Canon after many years with Nikon I think there is a great deal of truth this statement

True.

Except it is not coincidental. You can be certain that Canon spends millions of dollars analyzing the market, determining what customers want and will buy (with an emphasis on what they actually will buy rather than what a half dozen disgruntled people claim in gear forums).

They clearly knew what customers wanted when they released the 5DIII and the 6D, despite similar complaining on this forum.

Despite the whining we are being treated to now, I am pretty certain that the 7DII will be bought by a great many people who will be very happy with the specifications.

There is this silly myth that the interests of the shareholders are inevitably in conflict with the interests of the customers, but that's just goofy. The shareholders are not well-served unless customers want to buy a company's products. The customers are not well-served if the company cannot make a profit.

The "coincidental" should have had irony tags, of course it isn't coincidental.

 

[privatebydesign]

I still find it laughable though that in the end, it really really, really, does seem like people are all too happy for Canon to not get their DR up to where the competition is

Which assumes, of course, that - unlike an old, out-of-date, underpowered PC - this supposed lack of DR actually stops us from getting the results we want.

Which it doesn't...

Canon's priority is DR at the top of the histogram (where it performs very well), and that suits me just fine.

Let me know when a Nikony sensor can do better than this from this, and you might have a point...

You completely misunderstand dynamic range. There is absolutely no such thing as highlight DR ("DR at the top of the histogram"). That's a complete misnomer. Dynamic range by definition represents the ENTIRE range...from the noise floor to the white point. You increase DR...you INCREASE DR. Period. More DR on the D800 means they have more for the shadows, OR more for the highlights...or...more anywhere else you want to use it. It's a RANGE. You fit the exposure into that range. The D800 has VASTLY more highlight headroom, because your much more free to underexpose, and preserve the highlights, while concurrently being able to lift the shadows, than the 5D III. Conversely, you want to ETTR, mush it right to the limit? You can still do that with the D800...and the shadows become EVEN BETTER.

It's inane notions like highlight DR that seem to have radically confused the Canon community about the capabilities of their cameras. Not only that, based on my own experience, Canon's highlight headroom (yes, headroom...that's the only term that can legitimately be used here...as it does not refer to DR) differs from body to body. The 7D had lots of headroom...when the in-camera JPEGs showed the highlights were clipped via "blinkies", or the histogram starting to ride up the right-hand edge of the histogram, in LR/ACR you were still fully able to recover those highlights. On the flip side, the 5D III's JPEGs seem to represent highlights much more accurately...when they indicate that your clipping or nearly so, it's pretty darn accurate. ETTR too far, and you blow your highlights with a 5D III.

On a D800? LOTS of highlight headroom...when the camera indicates you've blown, you can not only recover...but you can usually recover with a LOT of detail. Detail the 5D III usually doesn't have, as the highlights have at the very least "gone hot"...lost the ability to represent detail and exhibit a loss of color fidelity as they are approaching the clipping point, but not yet actually clipped.

You guys have to stop believing that Canon can improve DR in one area and not another. That's a wild misconception. Dynamic range is dynamic range...there is no such thing as highlight DR or shadow DR. Canon could increase dynamic range by greatly increasing the charge capacity of each pixel (usually, by going to larger pixels). If they do that, the quality of every tonal level increases...dynamic range increases. However, concurrently, they could (and do...this is actually Canon's standard practice) also increase read noise at the same time. While the larger pixels gather more light and that means more DR, they lose a good chunk of that DR to higher read noise. This is EXACTLY the case with the 1D X. Canon designed a BIG sensor with BIG pixels that was capable of gathering nearly 91,000 electrons worth of charge per pixel (quite a bit more than any of their other sensors.) If they had left read noise at the prior 16.6e- levels of the 1D IV, the 1D X would have had 12.45 stops of dynamic range. If they found a way of keeping read noise at the same levels as the 7D, 8.6e-, they would have had a whopping 13.4 stops of DR.

Canon cannot have better highlight DR than a D800 with their current sensor and readout pipeline design. I don't know the specific reasons for it, however Canon's system has very high noise. My suspicion is that it's due to the frequency at which the ADC units and DIGIC chips operate...which continues to increase with each successive generation. Along with the increase in readout frequency comes an increase in read noise (just look through sensorgen.info...Canon read noise wasn't really that bad when you go back to the 400D, 40D, 450D, 5D days). It's spiked with the 1D X, which required a very high readout speed to achieve the 14fps mirror-locked frame rate. It's over 38e- now! Canon loses dynamic range because they have not just high read noise, but exceptionally high read noise. That loss in dynamic range reduces the range. Therefor, it affects highlights as well as shadows as well as midtones as well as every other usable tonal level in the image.

jrista,

With the utmost respect, you are doing what you and most scientific types do repeatedly. They peruse numbers, equations and theories and come up with mathematical explanations of what will be observed. Subsequently their own observations don't quite match the predictions so alterations are made to the equations and lo and behold a new refined theory does more accurately express the observed result. In the mean time people who are not scientists lay out their observations in an unscientific way and are pilloried because their observations don't match the first set of equations, they might not express their observations in true scientific forms but they are still normally valid, particularly in the photography field because the end result is entirely observable.

This has happened several times, most notably with the crop camera pixel on target theorem. The "crop camera advantage" has come down from a nearly universally promoted and accepted 60% to even the staunchest proponents now claiming a more realistic 20% in ideal situations, even though actual images don't even support that much. Now I don't want to get sidetracked into that conversation yet again, I merely pointed it out as a example.

Now I process files for all kinds of photographers and I have observed exactly the same thing as Kieth and Sporgon, I don't understand the reason, I well understand linear capture "curves" and know DR is DR, not separated into highs and lows and all that, but I know for a fact that I have been unable to lower highlight detail in Nikon files that I could in Canon files. I understand and accept that Exmor sensors still have advantages in shadow details and total "DR", I also know, though can't explain why, Canon do have an advantage in highlight editability.

Kieth's bird image is exactly the kind of result I have seen many times.

What we need is some scientific person who actually makes their own observations that they trust to come up with the scientific explanation for the observations those of us that are actually doing it are seeing.

 

[Steve]

You can be certain that Canon spends millions of dollars analyzing the market, determining what customers want and will buy will grudgingly accept and settle for

 

[privatebydesign]

"The switch from FD to EF in 1987 was clearly for the better."


Of course the switch to EF was the right decision, it didn't help "US" with thousands of dollars worth of gear though. Also you both seem to have missed my point, which was, Canon will do what they believe is best and give us the cameras we actually need, rather than profess to wanting, and they have been proven to get it right enough of the time to make the sales they do.

The question would be couldn't they have done the same thing and somehow preserved the FD mount?
Or was it a sales gimmick to force people to buy new gear. Remember we're talking 1987, in technology terms digital photography for the masses was a long way off.

Well other companies tried to maintain their mounts, most notably Nikon, and the end results were horrific legacy issues as they swung between internal body AF motors and lens internal AF motors, partial control of electronic diaphragms and legacy mechanical apertures. Canon's best decision was all electronic EF lenses from the word go with lens internal AF motors and electronic apertures, as well as the contact flexibility to accommodate more modern features like IS and AF distance information etc. Where they might have had some fudge factor was the registry distance, from the FD's 42mm to the EF 44mm, this is what killed any chance of legacy compatibility, and had they maintained the 42mm then we might have seen dual capability early EOS bodies with mechanical aperture levers to control the FD diaphragms. But it wasn't to be........

 

[Don Haines]

"The switch from FD to EF in 1987 was clearly for the better."


Of course the switch to EF was the right decision, it didn't help "US" with thousands of dollars worth of gear though. Also you both seem to have missed my point, which was, Canon will do what they believe is best and give us the cameras we actually need, rather than profess to wanting, and they have been proven to get it right enough of the time to make the sales they do.

The question would be couldn't they have done the same thing and somehow preserved the FD mount?
Or was it a sales gimmick to force people to buy new gear. Remember we're talking 1987, in technology terms digital photography for the masses was a long way off.

They had to make a decision.... control the lens digitally... or control it with analog signals.

Unlike older systems where every function had it's own pin and there were even some systems where the lens was driven from a motor inside the camera body, the EF mount was simplicity redefined. Power, ground, data in, and data out, and a clocking signal.

They really didn't have the option of a hybrid system as that would have done nothing well. Keep in mind that digital sensors were emerging then and the writing was on the wall.... the film DSLR was on the way out and there was going to be a massive upheaval in the industry. Lenses were already at the point where it made more sense to control them digitally so looking at the future, Canon really didn't have much of a choice.

BTW, I got my first digital camera in 1986....

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications - Why Canon, Why? This is it?

As an owner of the 7D, the specs just doesn't seem to make you want to buy this as soon as it comes out. The way I look at it, this camera represents the top of the crop line for Canon for then next 4 years --- 2018 -2019. It has no 4k, no RAW 1080p, no wifi and no sd uhs-ii. Now don't get me wrong, Canon makes solid products and I know the 7D Mark II will be a solid product in terms of performance and reliability, but Canon is just playing this way too safe. They are heading to fall behind the competition.

Tethered shooting is very nice and Canon had the opportunity to cut the cord with this, but no such luck, no WIFI -- wild ..I guess they still want to sell 800 WIFI add-ons which is completely bonkers to purchase. Would be nice to have some 4k in this body and maybe Im pushing it a bit, but at a minimum throw in RAW 1080p, the magic lantern guys are whipping up Magic with RAW video, does canon do anything to integrate that no! just 1080p60 with the same washed out codec is a waste of time. I am 100% team canon but man, they don't even have a high MP body, another one clocking in at 20MP.

Coming out with this camera with SD UHS-I is the clearest indicator that canon will never adopt uhs-ii until 2019 -- sorry canon 5D MarkIV guys, this is a big sign of disappointment to come. I will remain with Canon for stills, but they offer zero for video. Since video is a non event, the new focusing system as awesome as it is will not be used by me since I wont use video Long story short, I held out for years hoping the world for the 7D2, but canon played it WAY timid. I will just go full frame with a 6D. Canon, please stop stunting you products to protect your expensive Cinema Line by churning up tired features for the bottom end. 1080p60!!!!, wow how awesome...signing off.

Yeah it does seem silly to have left out 4k, now that it took this long for the 7D2 to arrive.
Quite a shame.
I'm even getting afraid that the 5D4 won't even offer 4k and 1080pRAW (which seems unthinkable, but maybe not to Canon).
If they don't everyone will just stick with 5D3+ML RAW or buy some non 7D2 non 5D4. Heck, SONY is coming out with a monster 4k videocam and it doesn't even cost more than the 1DC and yet it has gobs and gobs more features and a better sensor and everything under the sun. Canon will be squeezed out of their 1DC zone and have nothing new to entice anyone at the regular DSLR level.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The 5D IV is now the real milestone...that's the one to watch. If Canon misses on the sensor IQ front for the 5D IV.........

I don't agree, the 1Ds was a groundbreaking camera, as were the 1Ds MkII and 1Ds MkIII. I can easily see Canon putting it all into a 1Ds MkIV/1DXs, then let that trickle down to the 5D MkIV.

Given their sensor output up until now I see the real reason for the 1 series 1DX "amalgamation" was Canon's inability to make that mythical >35MP, they couldn't make a 1Ds MkIV two years ago, who knows if they can now. I certainly know there is a heavy built up demand from 1Ds MkIII users, myself included, to upgrade our equipment, personally I am more interested in a 1DX MkII (22MP >10fps) than most 1Ds MkIII users who want >35MP and 6 or so fps.

But I believe the truth is most long term 1Ds MkIII users are more interested in the upgrade for business reasons than pure IQ issues, sure more whatever will be nice, but most of us have made good enough livings with what we have and our output is not limited by IQ.

Do they have time to let stuff that others are putting out 5 years ago trickle down from a 1DXs at this point?
And $8000 for an exmor-like sensor from Canon when an adapted A7R is a small fraction? Granted you'd still need another body along with the A7R, but even then A7R+5D3 still costs way less than a 1DXs type camera. And if you went D810 alone, then way, wayyy less.
And they are gonna be soon creamed on 4k video front.
The 5D4 could easily have worse video than even the 5D3. It will probably take at least a year for ML to get RAW going on it, assuming they even allow ML on it so if it doesn't offer RAW built-in, it would be, out of box far worse than the 5D3 for video. It really must have a good 4k 10bit and 1080pRAW. Otherwise it will land with the biggest thud in the lower to mid-end motion picture world ever. Simply producing a 5D3 built-in video but not it does 1080p60 instead of 1080p30 forget it.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

"The switch from FD to EF in 1987 was clearly for the better."


Of course the switch to EF was the right decision, it didn't help "US" with thousands of dollars worth of gear though. Also you both seem to have missed my point, which was, Canon will do what they believe is best and give us the cameras we actually need, rather than profess to wanting, and they have been proven to get it right enough of the time to make the sales they do.

It kind of did help the Canon user though. And it was moving forward. It was not milking old product.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Canon's priority is DR at the top of the histogram (where it performs very well), and that suits me just fine.

You completely misunderstand dynamic range.

Is this what they call "field day" in English :-> ?

'Having a field day', yes, except everyone with the exception of jrista would have interpreted Keith Reeder's statement as 'photographic latitude at the top end of the dynamic range', and he is absolutely right. Look at his examples:

Only KR was completely wrong.
Any normal digital sensor is linear capture (there could be special types, but none of what people are using now is a special type).
Maybe the CFA filter might effect relative quickness to saturation between channels a bit, but other than a little but of that they all have the exact same highlight performance. They step up each channel in completely linear, exactly the same way. It's nothing at all like analog film.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Canon's priority is DR at the top of the histogram (where it performs very well), and that suits me just fine.

You completely misunderstand dynamic range.

Is this what they call "field day" in English :-> ?

Hmm, I'm honestly not sure what you mean... ???

What I was trying to express is there is at last someone who is open to information as he might be mistaken about the benefits higher dr has - and proof, that the opposition to exmor and so on is based on wrong facts. Everybody else has to taken some position by now so further convincing might be useless.

As always, I'll also manage to sneak Magic Lantern into this post: Working with their raw histogram makes the whole thing much easier to understand as there are no highlights magically hidden anymore like in the Canon histogram which is made for jpeg files. It your camera plainly says what dr the scene and your sensor has, you have a better understanding when shadow noise or banding becomes a problem.

Ooh, I didn't know ML had a RAW histogram. I think that, along with the DR expansion options, is pretty much the clincher for me. I just downloaded it, am going to give it a try today.

Yeah you should. It has useful stuff for still like that too and for video.... I mean night and day! (so long as you can deal with RAW video) It's just mindblowingly better than what Canon firmware gets out of the 5D3. Like so totally much better it's hard to fathom. The Canon firmware doesn't remotely get the full power of the sensor for video out of the camera, not even close.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

jrista,

With the utmost respect, you are doing what you and most scientific types do repeatedly. They peruse numbers, equations and theories and come up with mathematical explanations of what will be observed. Subsequently their own observations don't quite match the predictions so alterations are made to the equations and lo and behold a new refined theory does more accurately express the observed result. In the mean time people who are not scientists lay out their observations in an unscientific way and are pilloried because their observations don't match the first set of equations, they might not express their observations in true scientific forms but they are still normally valid, particularly in the photography field because the end result is entirely observable.

Only problem here is the reality does match in this case. And it's pretty clear to see that it simply has to in this case (other than possibly some little difference in differential rate at which R vs G vs B blows, but one word of warning there, don't get tricked by sRGB, that clips the red channel like mad and it's nothing to do with the CFA array).

This has happened several times, most notably with the crop camera pixel on target theorem. The "crop camera advantage" has come down from a nearly universally promoted and accepted 60% to even the staunchest proponents now claiming a more realistic 20% in ideal situations, even though actual images don't even support that much.

Says you and one other guy.
What about all the posts from Romy, myself, Jrista, wildlife photographers, etc. etc. that don't all align with a 20% under the most ideal scenario and barely there if ever at all in the real world.
Also to be fair, from time to time, along with the pixels per duck formula a few words would be said about of course there can be some adjustments in real world due to different AA filter strengths and resolving abilities of lenses and split-green CFAs, etc.

Now I process files for all kinds of photographers and I have observed exactly the same thing as Kieth and Sporgon, I don't understand the reason, I well understand linear capture "curves" and know DR is DR, not separated into highs and lows and all that, but I know for a fact that I have been unable to lower highlight detail in Nikon files that I could in Canon files. I understand and accept that Exmor sensors still have advantages in shadow details and total "DR", I also know, though can't explain why, Canon do have an advantage in highlight editability.

Yeah but what are you basing this on? What makes you so sure the highs were the same and that you are not just getting tricked by the different default mid-tone point placement and default metering placement for Nikon?

 

[privatebydesign]

"I don't know that we necessarily need a scientific person to hypothesize here. There is a simple explanation that accounts for what you see: metering. Since Canon's iFCL metering was introduced, their algorithms are geared towards preserving highlights."

That is totally invalid as I was talking about pre iFCL files as well as post iFCL. The same thing is observable.

"I too have noticed that Nikon cameras tend to run a bit bright in the highlights by default. There doesn't appear to be as much recoverability from a default metered exposure.

Again, though...this is all just illusory. It also doesn't actually change the core facts about dynamic range. "

Illusionary - semantics, the people that regularly work both manufacturers files all say the same thing, if you expose the shots the same the Canon camera is at a very strong shadow disadvantage, if you "over expose" the Canon in relation to the Nikon, that is, get the optimal exposure for each sensor, then the differences are much smaller, yes they are there, but they are smaller. Further, if you expose both to the Canon's optimal exposure the Nikon will not have the highlight detail the Canon will.

It is the same as colours, everybody knows default Canon files are more red than Nikon files, it doesn't matter what body and lens, make a profile and you can get them close enough, but they are intrinsic characteristics of the manufacturers equipment. Canon mounts and dials go one way, Nikon go the other etc etc.

"I think roughly a 20% difference on average is what your likely to get in an average situation."

That is not what my testing showed, in "average situations" i.e. AF and handholding (I would venture is the "average" for most people most of the time) I found no reliable difference.

 

[privatebydesign]

..... the film DSLR was on the way out .......

That would be an SLR

 

[privatebydesign]

The 5D IV is now the real milestone...that's the one to watch. If Canon misses on the sensor IQ front for the 5D IV.........

I don't agree, the 1Ds was a groundbreaking camera, as were the 1Ds MkII and 1Ds MkIII. I can easily see Canon putting it all into a 1Ds MkIV/1DXs, then let that trickle down to the 5D MkIV.

Given their sensor output up until now I see the real reason for the 1 series 1DX "amalgamation" was Canon's inability to make that mythical >35MP, they couldn't make a 1Ds MkIV two years ago, who knows if they can now. I certainly know there is a heavy built up demand from 1Ds MkIII users, myself included, to upgrade our equipment, personally I am more interested in a 1DX MkII (22MP >10fps) than most 1Ds MkIII users who want >35MP and 6 or so fps.

But I believe the truth is most long term 1Ds MkIII users are more interested in the upgrade for business reasons than pure IQ issues, sure more whatever will be nice, but most of us have made good enough livings with what we have and our output is not limited by IQ.

Do they have time to let stuff that others are putting out 5 years ago trickle down from a 1DXs at this point?
And $8000 for an exmor-like sensor from Canon when an adapted A7R is a small fraction? Granted you'd still need another body along with the A7R, but even then A7R+5D3 still costs way less than a 1DXs type camera. And if you went D810 alone, then way, wayyy less.
And they are gonna be soon creamed on 4k video front.
The 5D4 could easily have worse video than even the 5D3. It will probably take at least a year for ML to get RAW going on it, assuming they even allow ML on it so if it doesn't offer RAW built-in, it would be, out of box far worse than the 5D3 for video. It really must have a good 4k 10bit and 1080pRAW. Otherwise it will land with the biggest thud in the lower to mid-end motion picture world ever. Simply producing a 5D3 built-in video but not it does 1080p60 instead of 1080p30 forget it.

So buy a D810, nobody os stopping you.


The assumption is that I give a damn about video. I don't. I still don't own a DSLR with video and absolutely don't care if my next DSLR has it either.

 

[privatebydesign]

"The switch from FD to EF in 1987 was clearly for the better."


Of course the switch to EF was the right decision, it didn't help "US" with thousands of dollars worth of gear though. Also you both seem to have missed my point, which was, Canon will do what they believe is best and give us the cameras we actually need, rather than profess to wanting, and they have been proven to get it right enough of the time to make the sales they do.

It kind of did help the Canon user though. And it was moving forward. It was not milking old product.

Long term yes, short and mid term no, it was a killer time for many, I maintained my FD gear until 2004, so was a very late adopter.

But that was my point, Canon seem to make the decisions, tough though they may be, that actually do make sense to us in the long run. A generation behind here, one ahead there, it pales into insignificance in the long term, but Canon have a proven track record of making the "right" decisions for photographers, not every photographer, but enough to keep a more than viable business running well up until this point, I don't know if anything has changed that we should doubt their future abilities.

The 5D MkIII is two years old now and is generally accepted as the best general purpose 135 format digital camera ever made by anybody, it is just now being "matched" by Nikon, not embarrassed, not left in the weeds, matched, quite how that situation brings about the constant Canon MUST DO THIS, or must do that, or improve three stops to be competitive etc etc just doesn't make sense.

There is a complete disconnect between the rabid critics and the capabilities of the actual cameras available.

 

[privatebydesign]

Says you and one other guy.
What about all the posts from Romy, myself, Jrista, wildlife photographers, etc. etc. that don't all align with a 20% under the most ideal scenario and barely there if ever at all in the real world.

Well other than nobody ever actually quantifying >20%, let alone the farcical 60%, I have never seen your images and the Romy images you keep harping on about consist of this one post http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1280.msg258952#msg258952

If you do some searching you can find his 7D and 5D MkII comparison here http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/128151871 as everybody does he did the comparison in totally artificial conditions, especially considering he is a wild bird shooter, and how do you quantify >20% from that example?

Jrista's moon mages, after he was corrected on his methodology a large portion of his results were found faulty, and again, we are talking shooting conditions far from average, good mounts, Live View manual focus etc etc.

Show me your comparisons showing >20% crop camera advantage and I will find errors in your methodology too.

 

[privatebydesign]

Yeah but what are you basing this on? What makes you so sure the highs were the same and that you are not just getting tricked by the different default mid-tone point placement and default metering placement for Nikon?

It doesn't matter, and that is what you theoretical procrastinators don't get.

In Kieth's example with a Canon file those highlights are recoverable, if that was a Nikon file I do not believe they would have been. I don't profess to know why, and it normally takes you procrastinators a few years to catch up, but that is what I have found to be true, presumably Kieth and Sporgon have found that too.

 

[privatebydesign]

Well, as you say, maybe it's just time to get empirical. I'll be renting another camera soon here...I think probably the A7s and if I can the necessary adapter to use my Canon lenses, so the optics can be the same across the board. I believe, and this is based on my own experience with D800 and D600/610 files, that the differences can be quite meaningful. I believe the shadows are deeper, more richly colored deeper than a Canon file, etc. It's really just come down to the data, though...so I'm going to get some, and share it all. I'm actually not even expecting that to really end the debate...what some people consider meaningful could very well still be considered meaningless by others...but, at least I can put together some concrete, real-world data that can be referenced in the future.

As we are talking about a visual medium ot would make sense to post visual illustrations, unfortunately my hands are tied, the Nikon files I work are not mine and I have no examples of Canon's and Nikon's being shot during the same shoot I can post.

As for shadows, I 100% agree, Exmor sensors have a meaningful difference on screen, particularly if your screen is too bright, I need no "proof" of that. I do question the need to raise Zone II "Textured black; the darkest part of the image in which slight detail is recorded" up significantly on any kind of regular basis though, to "need" to do that demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of core exposure ideas, and any hope of turning even Exmor Zone II exposed areas into meaningful detail with realistic colour, texture and detail is pointless. Yes it doesn't have the noise and banding a Canon file might have before finishing processing, but it still won't make for a pleasingly detailed and toned area of the image.