DXO calls the D7200 "Super awesome greatness with frosting on top"

[Loswr]

Not everyone shoots with ambient only. -3Ev can be useful for flash photography in a dark environment. Subject can be completely flash-lit but ambient light is very low. (e.g. you shoot with ST-E3 on camera triggering off camera flashes.)

That's a reasonable use case, but again... -3 EV is really dark. A fireplace at the end of the room as the sole illumination, for example. How common are situations like that? More importantly, how common are situations like that where a strobe (or a group of them) going off won't kill the mood or be outright forbidden?

 

[unfocused]

My problem/complaint is those who fixate on on particular aspect of a camera and ignore everything else. For example, DR. Nikon is ahead with DR... Period! To those who say that more DR is not a good thing, stop deluding yourself.... Would you be happier if Canon REDUCED DR? Of course not! We all want more.....

The point being, this is only one aspect of a cameras worth...

Those who fixate on it as "the true measure of a camera" are delusional. Those who dismiss it are equally delusional. The truth is somewhere in the middle...

I agree and would add a few additional points (most of which are also covered by Neuro):

I have participated in this forum for many years and too many of those who complain are goal-post movers. Through several generations of cameras I have seen some of these same people insist that some metric or another where Canon happened to be different from Nikon or Sony was a sure sign that Canon was a failure and their cameras were virtually worthless.

That was even the case where Canon was ahead on a metric. For example, when Canon consistently offered higher megapixel sensors than their competitors, these people complained that Canon was putting too many megapixels into its cameras at the expense of high ISO noise control. Then, when Canon elected to emphasize high ISO performance over pixel density, these same voices began complaining about how Canon was "behind" in megapixels. That's just one of many examples where the Canon critics moved the goal posts as soon as Canon neared the goal line.

I wish I could ban anyone who uses the term "cripple" for any camera manufacturer or feature. It is astoundingly ignorant. Every product offers a set of features that rise or improve as you spend more. And, every feature has a cost to it. If a product were truly "crippled" (which frankly is an insensitive and bigoted term by the way) it wouldn't deliver what it promises. But, every DSLR made today delivers far more than any SLR with film ever delivered – and still, most of the great photographs of the world were taken with those cameras. Yet, we have people complaining because their low-cost camera doesn't contain every feature they want at no price premium.

Sure, everyone wants a bit more dynamic range. But I have to say, for me it doesn't even make the top 10 on my personal wish list. There are a lot of features I would love to see that would help me do my job better and faster and more dynamic range is quite low on that list.

Canon does respond. Go back and look at what the complainers were talking about in previous generations of cameras and then compare what the current generations offer. Three obvious examples:

5DII owners howled about its autofocus system and swore that Canon would NEVER offer as good of an autofocus system in the 5DIII as in the 7D -- guess what, they put a better autofocus system in.

When the 60D came out, you would have thought the world was ending because it didn't have AFMA and again, people swore Canon would not include it in the 70D (along with a better autofocus system) -- guess what, we got both.

7D critics acted as though it was virtually impossible to take a decent picture with the 18mp sensor because it was "too noisy." From all accounts and reviews, the 7DII sensor is pretty stellar except OMG!!! it doesn't have enough dynamic range!

And, with each generation of criticism people have sworn that unless Canon met their personal desires the company was doomed to failure. And, then, when those desires are met, many of these same people continue to insist the company is doomed because they aren't meeting some new, obscure metric that the small minority of complainers has determined is THE MOST IMPORTANT METRIC IN THE WORLD!

So yes, improvements are always nice and I look forward to future improvements, but excuse me if I don't get worked up about minor metrics that shift with each new generation of cameras.

 

[Don Haines]

My problem/complaint is those who fixate on on particular aspect of a camera and ignore everything else. For example, DR. Nikon is ahead with DR... Period! To those who say that more DR is not a good thing, stop deluding yourself.... Would you be happier if Canon REDUCED DR? Of course not! We all want more.....

The point being, this is only one aspect of a cameras worth...

Those who fixate on it as "the true measure of a camera" are delusional. Those who dismiss it are equally delusional. The truth is somewhere in the middle...

I agree and would add a few additional points (most of which are also covered by Neuro):

I have participated in this forum for many years and too many of those who complain are goal-post movers. Through several generations of cameras I have seen some of these same people insist that some metric or another where Canon happened to be different from Nikon or Sony was a sure sign that Canon was a failure and their cameras were virtually worthless.

That was even the case where Canon was ahead on a metric. For example, when Canon consistently offered higher megapixel sensors than their competitors, these people complained that Canon was putting too many megapixels into its cameras at the expense of high ISO noise control. Then, when Canon elected to emphasize high ISO performance over pixel density, these same voices began complaining about how Canon was "behind" in megapixels. That's just one of many examples where the Canon critics moved the goal posts as soon as Canon neared the goal line.

I wish I could ban anyone who uses the term "cripple" for any camera manufacturer or feature. It is astoundingly ignorant. Every product offers a set of features that rise or improve as you spend more. And, every feature has a cost to it. If a product were truly "crippled" (which frankly is an insensitive and bigoted term by the way) it wouldn't deliver what it promises. But, every DSLR made today delivers far more than any SLR with film ever delivered – and still, most of the great photographs of the world were taken with those cameras. Yet, we have people complaining because their low-cost camera doesn't contain every feature they want at no price premium.

Sure, everyone wants a bit more dynamic range. But I have to say, for me it doesn't even make the top 10 on my personal wish list. There are a lot of features I would love to see that would help me do my job better and faster and more dynamic range is quite low on that list.

Canon does respond. Go back and look at what the complainers were talking about in previous generations of cameras and then compare what the current generations offer. Three obvious examples:

5DII owners howled about its autofocus system and swore that Canon would NEVER offer as good of an autofocus system in the 5DIII as in the 7D -- guess what, they put a better autofocus system in.

When the 60D came out, you would have thought the world was ending because it didn't have AFMA and again, people swore Canon would not include it in the 70D (along with a better autofocus system) -- guess what, we got both.

7D critics acted as though it was virtually impossible to take a decent picture with the 18mp sensor because it was "too noisy." From all accounts and reviews, the 7DII sensor is pretty stellar except OMG!!! it doesn't have enough dynamic range!

And, with each generation of criticism people have sworn that unless Canon met their personal desires the company was doomed to failure. And, then, when those desires are met, many of these same people continue to insist the company is doomed because they aren't meeting some new, obscure metric that the small minority of complainers has determined is THE MOST IMPORTANT METRIC IN THE WORLD!

So yes, improvements are always nice and I look forward to future improvements, but excuse me if I don't get worked up about minor metrics that shift with each new generation of cameras.

+1

My 7D2 does EVERYTHING better than my 60D did.....
My 60D does EVERYTHING better than my Olympus 620 did.....
My Olympus 620 does EVERYTHING better than my Olympus 510 did.....
My Olympus 510 does EVERYTHING better than my Olympus 300 did.....

and whatever camera I get next, be it Canon, Nikon, Sony, or whatever, I expect it to be far superior to my current camera.... and that is why I think that this morbid fascination over the "feature of the moment" is just noise and shall fade away....

 

[privatebydesign]

To those who say that more DR is not a good thing, stop deluding yourself....

Who has said that? I don't recall anybody here ever saying more DR is not a good thing, only that it isn't as important as some other things we, as Canon shooters, do have over the competition.

 

[Sporgon]

I wish I could ban anyone who uses the term "cripple" for any camera manufacturer or feature. It is astoundingly ignorant. Every product offers a set of features that rise or improve as you spend more. And, every feature has a cost to it.

I agree with what you have said, and would even have agreed with the above quoted paragraph until recently.

After getting the 6D to go with my 5DII my biggest complain was the softness of the controls, especially the rear command wheel, which feel 'mushy', cheap and imprecise. The wheel and eight way controller looks identical to the one on the 60D, a substantially cheaper camera. I had always assumed that the wheel on the 60D must feel the same, until Marsu42, who has both camera bodies, pointed out that the wheel on the 60D is smooth and positively click stopped, unlike the 6D.

So what on earth is going on here ? Canon had exactly the same wheel / eight way controller assembly that they were going to fit into the 6D from a much cheaper model, yet they went to the trouble of modifying it to feel inferior. The difference between the now 1D series quality of the rear command wheel on the 5DIII + joystick arrangement was not enough differentiation: Canon wanted to make damn sure the control interface felt inferior, despite the fact that a model costing half the price had exactly the same module of greater quality.

Now when I buy a 6D that is much cheaper than a 5DIII I don't expect to get the same AF, shooting speeds, buffer, build quality etc, but to have the most important control purposely made inferior to exactly the same thing on a model costing half the amount is, to me, infuriating and unneccesary.

However from Canon's point of view it has probably worked. I've bought a 6D but when the 5DIV comes out I will probably change it for that if that new model has an interchangeable screen, which I thinking it may well have as Canon have reverted to putting an interchangeable screen into the 7DII.

 

[Marsu42]

I wish I could ban anyone who uses the term "cripple" for any camera manufacturer or feature. It is astoundingly ignorant. Every product offers a set of features that rise or improve as you spend more. And, every feature has a cost to it.

Canon wanted to make damn sure the control interface felt inferior, despite the fact that a model costing half the price had exactly the same module of greater quality.

The problem of course is that we'll never know the reasons why Canon do whatever they do, there are always multiple possible explanations.

However, I do think Canon has a tendency for rather aggressive upselling by putting annoyances into minor models. I call this "crippling" when it doesn't fit the interior consistency of a model, otherwise it's just model policy like the fact that the 6d has a cheap build and is probably designed to be able to drop a lot in price and still generate profit.

Clear examples of "crippling is" I can think of right now and have personally I experienced are:
* Removal of afma from 60d
* Inability to save hdr source files on 6d
* Cut options for button allocation (like fec on SET) on 6d
* Video length limit (not Canon's fault, but b/c of import taxes)

Arguably other crippling is:
* braindead information like "wifi" on minor model's top lcd instead of more useful values
* completely unreachable dof preview button on 6d
* only single-funtion layout of top buttons (like iso)
* only 1or 2 c modes on minor models

Probably "model policy is"
* just 180/x x-sync, 1/4k shutter on 6d (which basically is a "5d2b")
* No 100% vf except on premium models
* No at all sealing on non-L lenses, even expensive ones

 

[AvTvM]

Canon does cripple, hobble, inhibit cameras, actively refusing to make them NOT as good as they could be - even when it does not involve additional R&D, engineering or manufacturing costs. I will always call them (Nikon is equally bad on this!) out for it, even it makes fanbois and political correctness zealots' heads explode.

In addition to Marsu's list the subpar Auto-ISO implementation on most EOS models immediately comes to mind. Crippling, nothing else. Algorithms and parameters are known. No problem to put those parameters into any EOS. But no ...

 

[Don Haines]

Canon does cripple, hobble, inhibit cameras, actively refusing to make them NOT as good as they could be - even when it does not involve additional R&D, engineering or manufacturing costs. I will always call them (Nikon is equally bad on this!) out for it, even it makes fanbois and political correctness zealots' heads explode.

In addition to Marsu's list the subpar Auto-ISO implementation on most EOS models immediately comes to mind. Crippling, nothing else. Algorithms and parameters are known. No problem to put those parameters into any EOS. But no ...

I believe that all that has to be said on this issue is "60D AFMA"

 

[AvTvM]

I believe that all that has to be said on this issue is "60D AFMA"

Yes, that was one of the most blatant cripplings ever in Canon history. But the list of evil crippling, underdelivering, holding back functionality just to make customers buy a whole new camera ... is long. ANd Canon is one of the global "masters of iteration".

 

[mackguyver]

I believe that all that has to be said on this issue is "60D AFMA"

Yes, that was one of the most blatant cripplings ever in Canon history. But the list of evil crippling, underdelivering, holding back functionality just to make customers buy a whole new camera ... is long. ANd Canon is one of the global "masters of iteration".

Canon is curiously a company that often gives entry level products more advanced features/technology than their high end products - at least well ahead of the top end products if for no reason other than longer development timelines. Reference iFCL, DPAF, transmissive LCD, etc.

And speaking of Nikon - one only needs to look to the screw vs. ultrasonic AF compatibility. That was one of the biggest reasons I went for a Canon when I went digital with SLRs.

 

[unfocused]

I believe that all that has to be said on this issue is "60D AFMA"

Whatever...I really don't care. If it makes people feel better to call product differentiation crippling, so be it.

But, for the record: For several years Canon actively discouraged AFMA. I suspect, but do not know, that they felt it was more hassle than it was worth for amateur bodies. They may have seen an uptick in bodies sent in for service from people screwing with the settings and decided to just take it out. I know they took a lot of crap for dropping it from the 60D and put it back in the 70D, so apparently they had a change of heart.

No one knows the business reason why they did this.

 

[Don Haines]

I believe that all that has to be said on this issue is "60D AFMA"

Whatever...I really don't care. If it makes people feel better to call product differentiation crippling, so be it.

But, for the record: For several years Canon actively discouraged AFMA. I suspect, but do not know, that they felt it was more hassle than it was worth for amateur bodies. They may have seen an uptick in bodies sent in for service from people screwing with the settings and decided to just take it out. I know they took a lot of crap for dropping it from the 60D and put it back in the 70D, so apparently they had a change of heart.

No one knows the business reason why they did this.

FINALLY! Someone got the point!

Odds are they had a good reason to take it out. Look at the number of people who screw up AFMA... It sounds so simple to do, but unless you take great pains with the setup and lighting, you may well be making things worse.... and you really do need software like Focal to do it right.

It's like "Why don't they support video recording at 4K and 60fps..... Some people say that they are deliberately crippling the camera, yet the odds are that they are trying to keep it from overheating and burning out components.... If they could do it reliably without harming the camera, they would, and we would be sick and tired of Canon's marketing people shouting 4K 4K 4K at us....

 

[Loswr]

No one knows the business reason why they did this.

FINALLY! Someone got the point!
Odds are they had a good reason to take it out. Look at the number of people who screw up AFMA...

Indeed. AFMA debuted in the 1DIII. The 50D got it, but at that time there were no xD 1.6x crop bodies. The 7D was a step up closer to 'pro' from the 50D, while the 60D sent the other way...and the cost followed suit. That matters because lower cost bodies tend to sell more, and more sales mean more support (including in warranty service). The Canon manuals warn that AFMA can result in missed focus, potentially resulting in more loss-generating warranty service for a 'consumer' camera.

But...haters gonna hate and whiners gonna whine.

 

[Marsu42]

No one knows the business reason why they did this.

For the afma occasion, it isn't very difficult to figure out: They needed a reason to push the more expensive 7d1 while the newer 60d had a bit better sensor. Imho there's no reason to assume that the 60d suddenly had gone "amateur" vs. the "semi-pro" 50d just because Canon had a more expensive model in the lineup.

Esp. the afma issue is funny as some people switch from arguing that FoCal is the magic bullet for all focus problems to stating that afma shouldn't be in sub-$2k cameras because you could get it all wrong and harass poor Canon with service requests. Alas, there are no ends of 7d2 "softness" threads even w/o anyone playing around with afma :->

Of course fanbois will be fanbois - but even if everyone voicing a critical opinion is wrong and the silent majority adores Canon, I don't believe Canon doesn't care at all about the widespread reservations in popular reviews like in dpreview on the 6d which sums it up nicely. At least the 7d2 shows they might change their ways a bit, let's see about upcoming releases:

Whereas Nikon seems to have taken the approach of taking away as little as possible from D800 when creating the D600, Canon appears almost to have gone the other way, removing as much as it thinks it can get away with at the price. The result is the kind of conservative, slightly unimaginative design that’s become the company’s hallmark. It’s still bound to be a very good camera, of course; just perhaps not quite as good as it could be.

 

[unfocused]

Of course fanbois will be fanbois – but even if everyone voicing a critical opinion is wrong and the silent majority adores Canon...

Seriously??? I thought you were better than this Marsu. When people have to resort to name-calling they've lost the argument. No one has suggested either a) voicing a critical opinion is wrong or b) that the silent majority adores Canon. (Although those that vote with their wallet appear to prefer Canon and I imagine that's the group that Canon cares the most about.)

Imho there's no reason to assume that the 60d suddenly had gone "amateur" vs. the "semi-pro" 50d just because Canon had a more expensive model in the lineup.

No reason except build quality, features and pricing. I think it's pretty well accepted that Canon deliberately chose to move the 60D down-market, just as it's pretty apparent they decided to move the 70D back up a notch and then move the 7D up even more (while maintaining the same price for the 7DII).

Esp. the afma issue is funny as some people switch from arguing that FoCal is the magic bullet for all focus problems to stating that afma shouldn't be in sub-$2k cameras because you could get it all wrong and harass poor Canon with service requests.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here. I see no inconsistency between those who use AFMA and recommend FoCal as their preferred software and also pointing out that Canon has never been wildly enthusiastic about AFMA for the average consumer.

No one is feeling sorry for "poor Canon." Instead, simply pointing out that from a business standpoint, they don't necessarily want to encourage customers to fiddle with adjustments that are beyond the capacity of many users.

 

[Loswr]

For the afma occasion, it isn't very difficult to figure out: They needed a reason to push the more expensive 7d1 while the newer 60d had a bit better sensor. Imho there's no reason to assume that the 60d suddenly had gone "amateur" vs. the "semi-pro" 50d just because Canon had a more expensive model in the lineup.

Here's what Canon has to say about AFMA:

[quote author=5DIII Instruction Manual]
Normally, this adjustment is not required. Do this adjustment only if necessary. Note that doing this adjustment may prevent correct focusing from being achieved.
[/quote]

So...it's your contention that Canon was using a 'feature' they say should not be needed and may screw up your focus as a way to upsell people from the 60D to the 7D, and they needed to do so because the 18 MP APS-C sensor in the 60D is better than the identically-spec'd 18 MP APS-C sensor in the 7D?? I guess frame rate, AF performance, build quality, etc., just weren't enough, 'eh?

Please properly calibrate your logic circuit using the Auto Fallacy Mind Adjustment feature in your brain.

 

[AvTvM]

All these verbal acrobatics di not change a bit about the facts. Canon is actively crippling many of their products. And the sole reason is "marketing differentiation". While some of it may make perfect business sense for Canon, it usually makes no sense for us as their customers.

Thats why i stricrly and staunchly see things as a paying canon customer. It is my prerogative to demand the very best for my money. And to criticize Canon as much as i want if they deliver less than that. If a critical mass of clients do that, it will inflicht a cost on Canon (lost goodwill, lost brand value, lost sales) - and if that cost exceeds any gains that Canon gets from marketing differentiation (extolling more money from us than we want by forcing us to buy higher up models 5d iii vs 6d for example just to get one or two more features we really want) then canon will cease and desist from that type of crippling.

I am more than happy to contribute to "marketing differentiation sanitizing". I consider it my duty as market participant on the demand side of things. Canon is a mere supplier and acts like one. And we are the kings and call the shots - provided we dont just seallow whatever our suppliers want to stuff down our throats but rather act as ... Our own, well informed and critical procurement managers.

 

[bholliman]

All these verbal acrobatics di not change a bit about the facts. Canon is actively crippling many of their products. And the sole reason is "marketing differentiation". While some of it may make perfect business sense for Canon, it usually makes no sense for us as their customers.

I believe market differentiation is a good thing for the consumer. Not sure about calling it "crippling", Canon (and Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc.) are offering different products with different features at different price points. What is wrong with that? You can disagree with their choice of which features to include in the mid to low price options, but you should buy the product that meets your budget and personal selection criteria.

If manufacturers didn't "cripple" as you call it, Canon would only offer the 1DX and Nikon would only offer the D3X. Personally, I'm glad Canon offers the 1DX, 5DIII, 6D, 7DII, 70D, etc. and Nikon and the other manufacturers offer a line up of different models, so I have a choice.

 

[Orangutan]

While some of it may make perfect business sense for Canon, it usually makes no sense for us as their customers.

Market share.

It is my prerogative to demand the very best for my money. And to criticize Canon as much as i want if they deliver less than that.

Sure. You could also criticize economy car manufacturers for limiting features on the low-end budget models.

If a critical mass of clients do that

I think the verdict is in and and all appeals are exhausted: it's not happening until the other manufacturers catch up to Canon's advantages (even if you consider marketing to be one of those)

And we are the kings and call the shots

FP!!

AvTvM, when you criticize Canon for these few failings, you're really criticizing the other manufacturers for failing to use their advantages to gain market share and profit. What would you have Nikon, Sony, Pentax and others do to move ahead of Canon?

 

[Loswr]

What would you have Nikon, Sony, Pentax and others do to move ahead of Canon?

I think going from 14-stops to 16-stops of low ISO DR is just the ticket.