The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]

[jrista]

Maybe then these forums could finally ditch the persistent Nikon fanatics and actually have some more interesting conversations for once. Maybe about ART, rather than technology.

With all due respect (which is plenty, …for your many informative posts about technology , "Canon Rumors" is the place for art-rather-than-technology discussions because, …? ???

Because that's what cameras are all about...making photographic art. Sure, it's a piece of technology, but they aren't designed to be collectors items that we obsess over the technical details of...just for the sake of obsessing over technical details.

Cameras are the engines of photonic artforms. The technology is just a means to an end...and while I'm the first to stand up and correct the discussion when someone starts spouting missleading factoids, that isn't really what we should be worried about. We should be concerned with the ACTUAL outcomes.

In that respect...the actual outcomes of pretty much all cameras on the planet these days put the vast majority of film-era photography to shame. Higher resolution, better color, better moments, better everything. We obsess over the technology so much these days that it's to the detriment of our art. Notice that I haven't been around quite as much lately? I'm trying to put more of my time into the art, instead of into debates about the technology.

(I've always been interested in astrophotography, and I'm very good at imaging the moon, but I've recently taken the deep dive into full blown wide field deep sky astrophotography. It's the most amazing, intriguing, beautiful...and concurrently complex, technical, and TIME CONSUMING form of photography I've ever seen. The depth and complexity of our night sky is just...amazing, and I really have to focus to make any headway. I struggle with technology...DSLRs, as much as Canon DSLRs specifically (especially the 350D and 450D, modded for high Ha sensitivity or even monochrome use) are used in astrophotography, are so woefully inadequate for the job. But the technology is only part of it. The rest is the artistic aspect. Once you've dealt with all the technical aspects, set up your mount, calibrated it, pointed it at an interesting nebula, and exposed dozens or hundreds of frames...then you have to turn all that technical data into a piece of artwork...and THAT is truly the most difficult part. I may spend 8 hours gathering data, and days processing it. So...maybe art is just on my mind these days. )

I spent a lot of time on these forums...and while I am happy to admit I don't know everything, I do know some things extremely well. I'm happy to have helped educate you guys to some of the oft-misunderstood facts about the technology that supports your art, and help you formulate more realistic hopes for future technology. But...these days, it's all the same old debate: "Nikon has more DR! Sony has more DR! Canon must suck!" Same old debate. There are still those who think that ISO 100 DR is the only thing that matters for IQ, when demonstrably, significantly fewer people shoot at ISO 100 than shoot at ISO 400 and up, where DR differences are minimal to meaningless. Canon technology does exceptionally well at higher ISO, and the rest of their non-sensor technology (not the least of which are their lenses) is superior to most every other option out there with a few rare exceptions (i.e. the Otus).

Just kind of tired of saying the same old thing, usually to the same old thick-headed, stubborn individuals, and not having the message sink in. (Especially when their responses demonstrate the most blatant and extensive ignorance...I'm constantly asking myself: "Geeze...I have to explain it AGAIN? How can I explain it differently, how can I dumb it down enough, that they might actually GET it this time?" Then I realize that they are probably just over-invested trolls...and try to go back to my processing...) Personally, I think it would be a nice change of pace for the lagging aspects of Canon technology to no longer be an issue, and instead start talking about how to use the technology Canon (and others, like Adobe) are giving us to make better art.

Because...if were not using our cameras to make AWESOME, MIND BLOWING ART, the kind of art that makes people stop and go: WWOOOWW! ......what's the point? ???

(Mind you, I do not consider myself that kind of artist yet...I think I have some good works, but I know that I have a LONG way to go before I can create the kind of work that really gives people pause and reason to meditate on the images they see. I need to spend a LOT more time with my camera and lens to learn what needs to be learned to become an expert or master of the art. It would be nice to discuss the nuances of the art, though...to discuss technique and vision and aesthetics....rather than technology...just for once.)



BTW, if you want some WOWs...try this guy out: Deep Sky Colors I think he may just be the best astrophotographer on the planet...he does huge mosaics with the deepest exposures, with the richest colors, taken under the darkest skies on earth, the guy will drive over 7000 miles just to produce one mosaic...and every single one of his images just blows my mind so much I'm not even able to utter the word "wow". It's just. Mind. Blown. No words.

^^ This is my goal. If I can become skilled enough to make just one image that compares to this guys work before I die....then I'll die a happy photographer.

 

[K-amps]

I'd like to be wrong.... but I fear Canon might disappoint many who desire f/8 AF, Foveon type or other radical sensor design, or 4k video all tech that could match the wow factor that the 5d2 and 7dc had when they came out... They seem to have been quite conservative since then. There have been many incremental improvements (like the 5d3/1dx over their predecessors, Dual Pixel AF) ; but Canon enthusiasts are waiting for a "wow" factor announcement.

 

[dgatwood]

"EOS 4D-R" - $4,500 (Shutter rating 400,000 shots)

DPAF 29.5Mp @ 8fps, (Min. RAW buffer 22), New AF system
ISO range: 100-25,600 (decent IQ up to ISO 6,400)
Integrated Battery Grip, LP-E4N
Built-in Speedlite Radio Transmitter
CFast 2.0, HDMI 2.0, Gigabit LAN, Headphone out
Video: UWTV 4K, DCI 4K, HDR video, Slow motion, FHD crop video modes
And because the fourth dimension is time, programmable intervalometer function ;D

Wired Ethernet is dead. Even laptop manufacturers are dropping it. Better to use something modern like a Thunderbolt port that can support mini-DisplayPort, HDMI, Ethernet, etc. all in one tiny connector (with appropriate adapters).

 

[Orangutan]

Wired Ethernet is dead.

Not hardly, only for mobile devices. Wired Ethernet will be dead when WiFi can achieve gigabit speeds on congested networks. But then we'll have 20gigabit wired Ethernet ;D

Better to use something modern like a Thunderbolt

Too proprietary, it would alienate PC users.

 

[bdunbar79]

jrista,

I agree with you 100%. My biggest weakness in sports photography is composition. I feel like things get moving too quickly and I can't compose the way I want to and even in post, when cropping, I still struggle with composition. I'm a scientist by training and I feel as though I focus too much on the technical aspects of shutter speed, aperture, ISO, DOF, etc. that any art form is hopelessly lost. Hopefully that is something I can change.

 

[unfocused]

...Because that's what cameras are all about...making photographic art. Sure, it's a piece of technology, but they aren't designed to be collectors items that we obsess over the technical details of...just for the sake of obsessing over technical details.

jrista,

I agree with you 100%. My biggest weakness in sports photography is composition. I feel like things get moving too quickly and I can't compose the way I want to and even in post, when cropping, I still struggle with composition. I'm a scientist by training and I feel as though I focus too much on the technical aspects of shutter speed, aperture, ISO, DOF, etc. that any art form is hopelessly lost. Hopefully that is something I can change.

Probably going to regret this. If you are serious about photography as an art form, please read this http://www.blog.unfocusedmg.com/?p=220

The books I reference there will give you a great start. But be forewarned, they are not "how to" manuals, but rather explorations of what constitutes art in photography.

Now, if you think the arguments on this forum over technology are something, just try discussing photography as art. Bear in mind that many people never progress beyond the "Ansel Adams" view of photography. That's not a criticism of Adams. In his time, he did much to advance photography as an acceptable art form. But, too many people have failed to move on. What was cutting edge 80 years ago, isn't any more.

There are some fantastic artists practicing today, but appreciating them requires people to move out of their comfort zones. Andreas Gursky really is incredible, but there have been discussions on this forum that simply demonstrate how ignorant commenters can be. Martin Parr is great fun. Ryan McGinley's images perfectly capture his generation. I'm an admirer of great portrait photography and Rineke Dijkstra is terrific.

Yet, frankly, if any of these photographers posted an image on this forum, they'd be attacked mercilessly because their images don't fit into neat little rules.

Brett,
You mentioned composition. The best writing that exists on composition is a bit of a "rant" by Edward Weston. I think of it whenever someone mentions the "rule of thirds." In my view, Weston has never been equaled for the pure beauty of his images and exquisite compositions. Yet, his commentary is very enlightening. To paraphrase, he said that more pictures are ruined by following rules of composition than by anything else. In essence, his point was that the only composition that mattered was whether or not the photograph worked.

Oftentimes Weston's simple quote: "Composition is the strongest way of seeing" is completely misinterpreted by hack photographers. If you read his whole commentary, you'll see that what he meant is the only thing that matters when composing a picture is to make it the strongest image possible. But too many people read this small snippet and think it means that somehow following arcane "rules" of composition will improve an image. That is the exact opposite of Weston's point.

This is a much more appropriate quote: “When subject matter is forced to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no freshness of vision. Following rules of composition can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial cliches.” – Edward Weston

 

[Maiaibing]

What would you consider a "fighting back" feature? ... what are you shooting that negates every other improvement in the MkIII over the MkII.

I want more pixels. I take lots of street shots and often have to crop a lot. At least 30 would be very useful. 36 would be great. If I could get 100 I would take it.

I also want better low light focussing performance. In low light shooting relatively fast moving subjects I have to take 3 shoots to be sure to get one right - both with the 5DII and the 5DIII (this was the deal breaker for me).

Finally, much better high iso. 5DIII is of course a little better than 5DII but not the jump in performance I would like to see.

That's pretty much it - quite a modest list when it comes to number of items. Time will tell if Canon will deliver.

 

[jrista]

...Because that's what cameras are all about...making photographic art. Sure, it's a piece of technology, but they aren't designed to be collectors items that we obsess over the technical details of...just for the sake of obsessing over technical details.

jrista,

I agree with you 100%. My biggest weakness in sports photography is composition. I feel like things get moving too quickly and I can't compose the way I want to and even in post, when cropping, I still struggle with composition. I'm a scientist by training and I feel as though I focus too much on the technical aspects of shutter speed, aperture, ISO, DOF, etc. that any art form is hopelessly lost. Hopefully that is something I can change.

Probably going to regret this. If you are serious about photography as an art form, please read this http://www.blog.unfocusedmg.com/?p=220

The books I reference there will give you a great start. But be forewarned, they are not "how to" manuals, but rather explorations of what constitutes art in photography.

Now, if you think the arguments on this forum over technology are something, just try discussing photography as art. Bear in mind that many people never progress beyond the "Ansel Adams" view of photography. That's not a criticism of Adams. In his time, he did much to advance photography as an acceptable art form. But, too many people have failed to move on. What was cutting edge 80 years ago, isn't any more.

There are some fantastic artists practicing today, but appreciating them requires people to move out of their comfort zones. Andreas Gursky really is incredible, but there have been discussions on this forum that simply demonstrate how ignorant commenters can be. Martin Parr is great fun. Ryan McGinley's images perfectly capture his generation. I'm an admirer of great portrait photography and Rineke Dijkstra is terrific.

Yet, frankly, if any of these photographers posted an image on this forum, they'd be attacked mercilessly because their images don't fit into neat little rules.

Your misunderstanding. My question is not about what art is. That's impossible to define...everyone has their own view on what art is. I know what art is. I've read dozens of books on the subject, in my past I've taken art classes covering oil and water painting, pastels, basic pencil drawing, etc. The problem isn't understanding art. I understand art, and it's various forms.

The question is, how does one achieve the artistic vision they have in their mind? It's one thing to be able to visualize something a certain way in your mind...and an entirely different thing to actually reproduce your vision in an actual artform. For all the work a camera does for you, where in classical arts all of the work is entirely up to you...it is no easier to fully realize your artistic vision with photography than it is with a brush and paints. It never mattered the medium for me...my difficulty was always converting my vision into actual art, in the way I wanted the art to be presented. I think that is ultimately the focal point of most artists art.

That is what I am referring to. That is where I think discussions need to take place. No one needs anyone else telling them whether their images are art or not. I personally do not believe every photograph ever taken was art...a lot of it simply isn't, but that doesn't matter. The person who took the photo, even if it only meets "snapshot"-but-not-art criteria, may have had some vision in their mind that they simply could not realize. THAT is where I think the most important discussions about photography should take place. The process of turning vision into art, or maybe even just discussing what vision is, how to improve your artistic minds-eye vision, etc.

Brett,
You mentioned composition. The best writing that exists on composition is a bit of a "rant" by Edward Weston. I think of it whenever someone mentions the "rule of thirds." In my view, Weston has never been equaled for the pure beauty of his images and exquisite compositions. Yet, his commentary is very enlightening. To paraphrase, he said that more pictures are ruined by following rules of composition than by anything else. In essence, his point was that the only composition that mattered was whether or not the photograph worked.

Oftentimes Weston's simple quote: "Composition is the strongest way of seeing" is completely misinterpreted by hack photographers. If you read his whole commentary, you'll see that what he meant is the only thing that matters when composing a picture is to make it the strongest image possible. But too many people read this small snippet and think it means that somehow following arcane "rules" of composition will improve an image. That is the exact opposite of Weston's point.

This is a much more appropriate quote: “When subject matter is forced to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no freshness of vision. Following rules of composition can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial cliches.” – Edward Weston

Totally agreed.

I don't even think that composition is really the crux of art...composition is just a bunch of rules that everyone misunderstands and everyone has a different opinion about regarding application. Discussing composition is really no different than discussing "What art is" itself. It's a lost cause, and I do believe that pigeonholing everyone into specific compositional rules ruins the actual art...because it destroys everyone's unique vision.

So I agree...it isn't about rules. That was never my question. It's about realization of artistic vision....WHATEVER that vision may be. It isn't as simple as it sounds, either...realizing your vision is probably the most difficult aspect of photography...period. It's THAT which takes years to hone and refine and ultimately perfect. It should generally only take a photographer a year to fully grasp the fundamental concepts of photography, and maybe two at most to become an expert at choosing the proper exposure (in ANY camera mode, not just Av or Tv or M...one should be able to expose in any camera mode available, and expose perfectly...according to their goals), or focusing accurately, or tracking subjects if they regularly shoot action, or using flash properly, etc. Within two years any dedicated photographer should be an expert at these things, and within a few more, they should have mastered the technical aspects of their art.

It's the artistic vision to actual art conversion process that takes so many years, decades, to ultimately master. Because that process is going to be largely unique to each individual, with a few shared thought processes and processing techniques that ultimately bring about the best quality.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

What would you consider a "fighting back" feature? ... what are you shooting that negates every other improvement in the MkIII over the MkII.

I want more pixels. I take lots of street shots and often have to crop a lot. At least 30 would be very useful. 36 would be great. If I could get 100 I would take it.

I also want better low light focussing performance. In low light shooting relatively fast moving subjects I have to take 3 shoots to be sure to get one right - both with the 5DII and the 5DIII (this was the deal breaker for me).

Finally, much better high iso. 5DIII is of course a little better than 5DII but not the jump in performance I would like to see.

That's pretty much it - quite a modest list when it comes to number of items. Time will tell if Canon will deliver.

A huge jump in high iso is a pipe dream and THE single least modest thing you could actually ask for since the camera are so close to the primary limit already.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Exactly why does Canon need to "fight back" on full frame cameras? The 5DIII and the 6D are both absolutely crushing their Nikon equivalents in sales.

Do you buy your camera equipment according to their sales figures?

My purchases are directed by my needs as a photographer. I did not buy the 5DIII after extensive testing - because it just did not bring anything useful to me. So for my money Canon will have to "fight back" or my next DSLR will not be a Canon unless I have a 5DII break down. Simple as that.

YMMV.

What would you consider a "fighting back" feature? As far as I can see the only thing the 5D MkIII doesn't do significantly better than the 5D MkII is low iso shadows, even then it is better, just not significantly better. And seeing as how the "best" competitors are only performing a stop or so better in this one metric I'd like to know what you, personally, would like from Canon. Also, what are you shooting that negates every other improvement in the MkIII over the MkII.

The best competitors are more like 3 stops not 1 stop better than the 5D3 for low ISO shadows. The 5D3 is basically the same as the 5D2, it actually measures a trace worse for standard DR and has similar banding one direction (far less banding in the other direction though, but so long as you have any in either direction....). At high ISO is where the 5D3 does better than the 5D2 in the shadows.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Ummm....no.....we can't. ;D

+1000000000000000000000000000000000
;D

Cubed

Cubed. How quaint. I'll factorial that, please!

Joking aside, I'm interested to see what, if anything, Canon has done with their sensor tech. I am really, truly hoping that Canon isn't just stuffing a bunch of video-related "improvements" into the 7D II. I'm hoping it gets some significant stills photography enhancements, preferably a fully integrated sensor design: on-die CP-ADC, on-die Digital CDS, DPAF, and maybe stacked pixels (i.e. Foveon style). I think that would finally send a message that Canon still has the necessary oomph to take back the sensor IQ crown, with high DR and better color fidelity than the competition.

Maybe then these forums could finally ditch the persistent Nikon fanatics and actually have some more interesting conversations for once. Maybe about ART, rather than technology.

We will see, but some rumors hint that the 7D2 sensor will probably be the same old, same old. What I really hope it is the new FF has new tech, if even that sensor doesn't I guess it will be A7R+adapter (and keep the 5D3 for video and stuff where you need more body performance).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Maybe then these forums could finally ditch the persistent Nikon fanatics and actually have some more interesting conversations for once. Maybe about ART, rather than technology.

With all due respect (which is plenty, …for your many informative posts about technology , "Canon Rumors" is the place for art-rather-than-technology discussions because, …? ???

Because that's what cameras are all about...making photographic art. Sure, it's a piece of technology, but they aren't designed to be collectors items that we obsess over the technical details of...just for the sake of obsessing over technical details.

Cameras are the engines of photonic artforms. The technology is just a means to an end...and while I'm the first to stand up and correct the discussion when someone starts spouting missleading factoids, that isn't really what we should be worried about. We should be concerned with the ACTUAL outcomes.

In that respect...the actual outcomes of pretty much all cameras on the planet these days put the vast majority of film-era photography to shame. Higher resolution, better color, better moments, better everything. We obsess over the technology so much these days that it's to the detriment of our art. Notice that I haven't been around quite as much lately? I'm trying to put more of my time into the art, instead of into debates about the technology.

(I've always been interested in astrophotography, and I'm very good at imaging the moon, but I've recently taken the deep dive into full blown wide field deep sky astrophotography. It's the most amazing, intriguing, beautiful...and concurrently complex, technical, and TIME CONSUMING form of photography I've ever seen. The depth and complexity of our night sky is just...amazing, and I really have to focus to make any headway. I struggle with technology...DSLRs, as much as Canon DSLRs specifically (especially the 350D and 450D, modded for high Ha sensitivity or even monochrome use) are used in astrophotography, are so woefully inadequate for the job. But the technology is only part of it. The rest is the artistic aspect. Once you've dealt with all the technical aspects, set up your mount, calibrated it, pointed it at an interesting nebula, and exposed dozens or hundreds of frames...then you have to turn all that technical data into a piece of artwork...and THAT is truly the most difficult part. I may spend 8 hours gathering data, and days processing it. So...maybe art is just on my mind these days. )

I spent a lot of time on these forums...and while I am happy to admit I don't know everything, I do know some things extremely well. I'm happy to have helped educate you guys to some of the oft-misunderstood facts about the technology that supports your art, and help you formulate more realistic hopes for future technology. But...these days, it's all the same old debate: "Nikon has more DR! Sony has more DR! Canon must suck!" Same old debate. There are still those who think that ISO 100 DR is the only thing that matters for IQ, when demonstrably, significantly fewer people shoot at ISO 100 than shoot at ISO 400 and up, where DR differences are minimal to meaningless. Canon technology does exceptionally well at higher ISO, and the rest of their non-sensor technology (not the least of which are their lenses) is superior to most every other option out there with a few rare exceptions (i.e. the Otus).

Just kind of tired of saying the same old thing, usually to the same old thick-headed, stubborn individuals, and not having the message sink in. (Especially when their responses demonstrate the most blatant and extensive ignorance...I'm constantly asking myself: "Geeze...I have to explain it AGAIN? How can I explain it differently, how can I dumb it down enough, that they might actually GET it this time?" Then I realize that they are probably just over-invested trolls...and try to go back to my processing...) Personally, I think it would be a nice change of pace for the lagging aspects of Canon technology to no longer be an issue, and instead start talking about how to use the technology Canon (and others, like Adobe) are giving us to make better art.

Because...if were not using our cameras to make AWESOME, MIND BLOWING ART, the kind of art that makes people stop and go: WWOOOWW! ......what's the point? ???

(Mind you, I do not consider myself that kind of artist yet...I think I have some good works, but I know that I have a LONG way to go before I can create the kind of work that really gives people pause and reason to meditate on the images they see. I need to spend a LOT more time with my camera and lens to learn what needs to be learned to become an expert or master of the art. It would be nice to discuss the nuances of the art, though...to discuss technique and vision and aesthetics....rather than technology...just for once.)



BTW, if you want some WOWs...try this guy out: Deep Sky Colors I think he may just be the best astrophotographer on the planet...he does huge mosaics with the deepest exposures, with the richest colors, taken under the darkest skies on earth, the guy will drive over 7000 miles just to produce one mosaic...and every single one of his images just blows my mind so much I'm not even able to utter the word "wow". It's just. Mind. Blown. No words.

^^ This is my goal. If I can become skilled enough to make just one image that compares to this guys work before I die....then I'll die a happy photographer.

one little minor thing you overlook.... you are currently posting in the EOS BODIES TECH RUMORS FORUM. Why the heck do you expect or want talk about photographic art in this sub-forum?

 

[jrista]

one little minor thing you overlook.... you are currently posting in the EOS BODIES TECH RUMORS FORUM. Why the heck do you expect or want talk about photographic art in this sub-forum?

I mean on these forums in general. It would just simply be nice to get past the whole Nikon/DR thing at some point. I'm not saying we stop talking tech...but there is more to owning a Canon camera than debating DR.

 

[privatebydesign]

one little minor thing you overlook.... you are currently posting in the EOS BODIES TECH RUMORS FORUM. Why the heck do you expect or want talk about photographic art in this sub-forum?

I mean on these forums in general. It would just simply be nice to get past the whole Nikon/DR thing at some point. I'm not saying we stop talking tech...but there is more to owning a Canon camera than debating DR.

Nobody is stopping you ignoring the threads you are not interested in debating.

 

[jrista]

Exactly why does Canon need to "fight back" on full frame cameras? The 5DIII and the 6D are both absolutely crushing their Nikon equivalents in sales.

Do you buy your camera equipment according to their sales figures?

My purchases are directed by my needs as a photographer. I did not buy the 5DIII after extensive testing - because it just did not bring anything useful to me. So for my money Canon will have to "fight back" or my next DSLR will not be a Canon unless I have a 5DII break down. Simple as that.

YMMV.

What would you consider a "fighting back" feature? As far as I can see the only thing the 5D MkIII doesn't do significantly better than the 5D MkII is low iso shadows, even then it is better, just not significantly better. And seeing as how the "best" competitors are only performing a stop or so better in this one metric I'd like to know what you, personally, would like from Canon. Also, what are you shooting that negates every other improvement in the MkIII over the MkII.

The best competitors are more like 3 stops not 1 stop better than the 5D3 for low ISO shadows. The 5D3 is basically the same as the 5D2, it actually measures a trace worse for standard DR and has similar banding one direction (far less banding in the other direction though, but so long as you have any in either direction....). At high ISO is where the 5D3 does better than the 5D2 in the shadows.

According to DXO ScreenDR (the ACTUAL dynamic range you get out of a REAL RAW FILE...we don't edit downsampled RAW images, because then it wouldn't be RAW, and we would lose a hell of a lot more editing latitude anyway...so YES, I AM comparing Screen DR, and I believe it is the ONLY valid DR comparison for what most photographers care about: RAW exposure editing latitude):

5D Mark III: 10.97 stops
D800E: 13.24 stops
D800: 13.23 stops

The D800/E are the best still cameras as far as dynamic range goes. That makes the difference 2.27 stops at best, or 2 1/4 stops.

If we did use Print DR, then it's 11.7 vs. 14.4, which is 2.7 stops, or about 2 2/3rd stops. (Mind, Print DR is NOT ACTUALLY MEASURED. It is extrapolated, but not measured...so a 2.7 stops difference is assumed, not guaranteed.) You don't get a full three stop advantage in either case, however as far as editing RAW images goes, Print DR is irrelevant. We CAN NOT EDIT RAW IMAGES THAT ARE DOWNSAMPLED, BECAUSE RAW CANNOT BE DOWNSAMPLED. We edit RAW files as RAW files...as 100% original, unmodified, full size bayer pixel array data. The sole reason we HAVE the kind of editing latitude we have is because we edit RAW. Therefor, Print DR is irrelevant when it comes to discussing our ability to lift shadows (which IS what EVERYONE thinks about when they think "dynamic range"). Shadow lifting ability is different than total image noise levels throughout the entire tonal grade...but no one really cares about total image noise levels. Above 18% gray, noise, even though it is still present to the same degree, is much harder to see...our eyes pick up small differences at lower intensities better than they pick up small differences at high intensities.

Everyone cares about shadow lifting or highlight recovery...editing latitude. At best, the difference in terms of editing latitude is 2 1/4 stops, based on actual DXO DR measurements taken directly from real RAW files.

 

[privatebydesign]

one little minor thing you overlook.... you are currently posting in the EOS BODIES TECH RUMORS FORUM. Why the heck do you expect or want talk about photographic art in this sub-forum?

I mean on these forums in general. It would just simply be nice to get past the whole Nikon/DR thing at some point. I'm not saying we stop talking tech...but there is more to owning a Canon camera than debating DR.

Nobody is stopping you ignoring the threads you are not interested in debating.

People such as yourself could also stop beating the horse that was dead so long ago and is now only a pile of rotting horse mush.

Meaning? Which dead horse do I beat?

Farcical really when you are the verbose one flagellating the deceased equine.

 

[privatebydesign]

What would you consider a "fighting back" feature? ... what are you shooting that negates every other improvement in the MkIII over the MkII.

I want more pixels. I take lots of street shots and often have to crop a lot. At least 30 would be very useful. 36 would be great. If I could get 100 I would take it.

I also want better low light focussing performance. In low light shooting relatively fast moving subjects I have to take 3 shoots to be sure to get one right - both with the 5DII and the 5DIII (this was the deal breaker for me).

Finally, much better high iso. 5DIII is of course a little better than 5DII but not the jump in performance I would like to see.

That's pretty much it - quite a modest list when it comes to number of items. Time will tell if Canon will deliver.

"I want more pixels" Either get a camera with more pixels or stitch.
"I take lots of street shots and often have to crop a lot." Er, learn to use the right focal length.
"I also want better low light focussing performance." Well no manufacturer is that much better or worse than any other on that, which hardly means Canon need to "fight back".
"Finally, much better high iso." Again, Canon are very competitive in this area, they either lead the competition or are very close, so again, they hardly need to "fight back".

Those are not features where Canon is trailing, unless you compare them solely to the number of pixels on the 36mp Sony sensor in all its iterations. All you are really saying is you'd like Canon to "fight back" with more pixels because you can't choose the right focal length and everything else they do is comparable to competing product capabilities, hardly a compelling reason for Canon to invest hundreds of millions of dollars on a new sensor fabrication line. I'd hoped your input would be far more worthwhile than you can't choose the right focal length and need mp to sort out your short comings.

If you want a 100mp sensor for cropping purposes just use a P&S, it is effectively the same thing and will give you the same IQ.

 

[jrista]

one little minor thing you overlook.... you are currently posting in the EOS BODIES TECH RUMORS FORUM. Why the heck do you expect or want talk about photographic art in this sub-forum?

I mean on these forums in general. It would just simply be nice to get past the whole Nikon/DR thing at some point. I'm not saying we stop talking tech...but there is more to owning a Canon camera than debating DR.

Nobody is stopping you ignoring the threads you are not interested in debating.

People such as yourself could also stop beating the horse that was dead so long ago and is now only a pile of rotting horse mush.

Meaning? Which dead horse do I beat?

Farcical really when you are the verbose one flagellating the deceased equine.

Sorry, thought that last response was from LTRL. My point is moot, given you are a different person.

As for the deceased equine, I only respond to those who bring the topic up again, in order to correct invalid facts, I don't start the debates myself.

 

[privatebydesign]

one little minor thing you overlook.... you are currently posting in the EOS BODIES TECH RUMORS FORUM. Why the heck do you expect or want talk about photographic art in this sub-forum?

I mean on these forums in general. It would just simply be nice to get past the whole Nikon/DR thing at some point. I'm not saying we stop talking tech...but there is more to owning a Canon camera than debating DR.

Nobody is stopping you ignoring the threads you are not interested in debating.

People such as yourself could also stop beating the horse that was dead so long ago and is now only a pile of rotting horse mush.

Meaning? Which dead horse do I beat?

Farcical really when you are the verbose one flagellating the deceased equine.

Sorry, thought that last response was from LTRL. My point is moot, given you are a different person.

As for the deceased equine, I only respond to those who bring the topic up again, in order to correct invalid facts, I don't start the debates myself.

Fair enough

I am not above beating a horse, dead or alive, indeed I have to go feed mine in a minute, the ungrateful bloody thing, but I like her really..............

 

[Niki]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><glusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/06/the-ramp-up-to-august-announcements-is-starting-cr2/"></glusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/06/the-ramp-up-to-august-announcements-is-starting-cr2/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>Northlight is reporting that Canon pro dealers in Germany are being invited to events in July to prepare for August announcements. This is pretty normal, certain dealers in most countries get advanced knowledge of the upcoming gear to prepare for dealer ordering and marketing.</p>
<p>If the pro dealers are involved, you can expect a prosumer DSLR at least. We also expect some higher end lenses to be added to the lineup.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_7dmk2.html" target="_blank">NL</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

can we just move on to the 7d3