Pi said:
I don't need them to find new physics and win a Nobel Prize (I wouldn't complain if they did) but getting rid of that annoying banding noise the 7D sensor produces would count almost as much for me 8)
Upvote
0
EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I don't need them to find new physics and win a Nobel Prize (I wouldn't complain if they did) but getting rid of that annoying banding noise the 7D sensor produces would count almost as much for me 8)
Don Haines said:
I can't speak from experience, as I haven't made the leap yet, but I understand 802.11ac is actually starting to approach the real-world throughput of gigE. While I doubt they'd put an ac antenna array in the 7d2 for space and power reasons, they COULD get the throughput if they wanted.
Also, given that Apple's target market for laptops correlates pretty strongly with pro and prosumer camera buyers, I think a thunderbolt / USB3 combo would be awesome- USB3 for PC users, TB for mac...
Upvote
0
Pi said:
Pardon my ignorance in physics... are you saying that 7D's sensor is only about 1 stop short of the theoretical limit so in practice it's impossible to improve the low-light sensitivity of APS-C sized sensors any further than t 1/3 - 1/2 stop? Or are there other factors involved? Of course, I mean sensors with the same resolution, not a 3MP sensor with huge pixels
.
Upvote
0
roguewave said:Pi said:
Pardon my ignorance in physics... are you saying that 7D's sensor is only about 1 stop short of the theoretical limit so in practice it's impossible to improve the low-light sensitivity of APS-C sized sensors any further than t 1/3 - 1/2 stop? Or are there other factors involved? Of course, I mean sensors with the same resolution, not a 3MP sensor with huge pixels
Pixels do not matter. The modern sensors with Bayer design have around 50% QE; the 7D has about 40%, see sensorgen. There is about 1 stop left; in practice, 1/2 or so. Lowering the read noise would improve the shadows a bit more but Canon is not worse there at high ISO than any other manufacturer (at high ISO).
The QE is computed on the green channel, I believe. Non-Bayer design would improve that even further but right now, the technology for that does not exist even though there are some good ideas. The foveon sensor is actually worse at high ISO and has poor color fidelity.
Upvote
0
Pi said:
Thanks for the explanation! If that's the case though, what kind of "Very good ISO performance" is expected according to this rumour?
Also, why is it that pixel size does not matter? I believe a lower resolution sensor of the same physical size would have proportionally larger photosites, which would exhibit less noise by gathering larger amount of light.
Upvote
0
This is a bit of a simplistic explanation, but here goes....bseitz234 said:
There are two basic types of network traffic, on type is where you set up "a pipe" and the data automatically streams down the pipe from one device to the other, the other type of data flow is a send/acknowledge data flow.... something like "here's a bit of data", answered by "I got it.... send me another"... and so on.. Most network traffic tends to be send/acknowledge and it takes time for the requests and acknoledgements to fly back and forth so the flow of data is slow.
When you connect with wire, data can flow both ways at once and this greatly speeds up the send/acknowledge protocols. On a wireless link you can only go one direction at a time and it takes time to turn the link around... plus you can have interference on wireless which causes re-transmissions and further slows things down. Processing of the data is faster on wire than wireless so there is less delay there too.
All this adds up...
In the end, you find out that it takes almost the same amount of time on a wireless link to move 20 bytes of data as it takes to move 1400 bytes of data so if you want any decent kind of throughput you need to be moving huge blocks of data in one direction and small amounts the other way..
Marketing people have a different perspective.... they compare the most favourable conditions of a wireless link to the least favourable conditions on a wired link... and that's how they come up with claims to be "almost as fast"
As a photographer, I suggest you do your own test... transfer a bunch of photos from a laptop to a computer over a wireless link, and then repeat the process over a wire link... send some tiny Jpgs and then try some RAW files and see the difference it makes to you on your gear...
Upvote
0
Sabaki said:
Your camera should have a "white balance shift" option in the menu somewhere, you can permanently change the colour balance there. I've read that adjusting this somewhat fixes the issue.
Both my T3 and 5D2 have it, so it's probably on all the other models too.
Upvote
0
Sabaki said:
It depends entirely on what algorithm you use to interpret the RAW data, just look at the difference between the same RAW file in DPP set to Portrait against Lightroom set to Adobe Standard, it is not that Canon reds are bad, it is that we don't take the time and trouble to use a profile that is accurate. For the record Adobe's Adobe Standard is very bad in interpreting the red channel on Canon RAW files, their picture mode emulations are MUCH better.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Because I hated the *yellow* cast of "Adobe Standard" I have switched to "Camera Neutral" which looks dull at first but seems to give the best results after a lot of adjustments - it's a shame the most important setting in Lightroom is at the very bottom :-\ ... I have to check about it also being better in saturated red gradients because this is one of the problems I know of esp. with crop files from my 60d.
Upvote
0
Many people actually like the over saturated reds that Canon produces by default. It seems to make people look better, vs. the green hue you may get with other brands.
Really it all seems very situational though. In the 70D vs. D7100 epic shootout (http://www.youtube.com/user/MichaelTheMentor/videos?view=0&flow=grid) by MichaelTheMentor, he spends a fair amount of time going over the colour differences between the two. When I took the comparison test I tried to select the Canon throughout, and got it wrong more often than not.
Really it all seems very situational though. In the 70D vs. D7100 epic shootout (http://www.youtube.com/user/MichaelTheMentor/videos?view=0&flow=grid) by MichaelTheMentor, he spends a fair amount of time going over the colour differences between the two. When I took the comparison test I tried to select the Canon throughout, and got it wrong more often than not.
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
If you are using Lightroom set it as your import preset, then you never have to remember it again.
Upvote
0
I am not a physicist, nor do I pretend to comprehend most of what some you fine folks say in that and other highly technologically advanced areas with respect to cameras. Those of you that debate these matters truly amaze me. Truly impressive depth of knowledge here, and I mean that sincerely.
That said, as a consumer of Canon products and basically an amateur enthusiast who just wants to get better and better at photography so I can take great photos in virtually all conditions, I cannot fathom why Canon would make a product such as the 7d2 "better" than the 1DX. I am not taking about "better value" mind you, I mean to say "better" period. To my logic, if Canon could do that, they would be doing it and THAT would be their flagship Professional camera body. But there are many people that I have heard / read both here and elsewhere who not only claim that the 7d2 is going to be the APS-C version of a 1DX producing similar images to the 5d3 but that it will cost $4,000 - $5,000 LESS than a 1DX and $1500 less than a 5d3.
Why on earth would Canon do this? The 7d2 will probably be a great camera (it better be) but if buying one eliminates the need for Pro level photographers and enthusiasts to have to buy any FF camera whatsoever then Canon would be committing business suicide. I can list a few reasons as to why they might do this, but NONE of them make logical sense from a business perspective.
I think the 7d2 will be an awesome camera, and it will probably be the perfect marriage to pro shooters or advanced enthusiasts currently using one of the 5 series or 1 series FF bodies. But "replace" those FF cameras it will not.
That said, as a consumer of Canon products and basically an amateur enthusiast who just wants to get better and better at photography so I can take great photos in virtually all conditions, I cannot fathom why Canon would make a product such as the 7d2 "better" than the 1DX. I am not taking about "better value" mind you, I mean to say "better" period. To my logic, if Canon could do that, they would be doing it and THAT would be their flagship Professional camera body. But there are many people that I have heard / read both here and elsewhere who not only claim that the 7d2 is going to be the APS-C version of a 1DX producing similar images to the 5d3 but that it will cost $4,000 - $5,000 LESS than a 1DX and $1500 less than a 5d3.
Why on earth would Canon do this? The 7d2 will probably be a great camera (it better be) but if buying one eliminates the need for Pro level photographers and enthusiasts to have to buy any FF camera whatsoever then Canon would be committing business suicide. I can list a few reasons as to why they might do this, but NONE of them make logical sense from a business perspective.
I think the 7d2 will be an awesome camera, and it will probably be the perfect marriage to pro shooters or advanced enthusiasts currently using one of the 5 series or 1 series FF bodies. But "replace" those FF cameras it will not.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Thanks, I already did that - unfortunately I learned about the disadvantages of Adobe Standard too late so I had to re-process heaps of old pictures, that's why I often suggest learning about switching the calibration to others :-o ... I still use Adobe standard for bracketing and focus stacking though since this is the calibration that "throws away" the least amount of raw data.
Upvote
0
renegade54 said:
They wouldn’t. Even if Canon has some technological breakthrough that allowed them to create a crop sensor that had better performance than the best FF sensors they make, they would put all the bells and whistles on it, put it in a “pro body”, and sell it for more than the 1Dx, because they can. There’s not a business man alive that wouldn’t know to milk a tech advance like that. And while they’re pulling in the sales from that they can create a megapixel monster for a FF camera with the same pixel density, and then a FF sensor using the same technology but normal density that would allow even greater high ISO performance. And they can wait a good several years before letting that technology trickle down to the consumer levels.
Upvote
0
WPJ said:
That's just it....I disagree with the premise that the 7d line is in direct competition with the 1D line. If the 7d2 is going to be "better" than the 1DX then why would a pro have a need for the 1DX2, or the next iteration of the 1DX? They would just use the 7d2 and wait for the 7d3. That's not to say the 7d2 is not going to be a great camera, but it will have it's niche...and all it has to be is the best in it's niche...not better than a FF 1DX.
Upvote
0
