jctriguy wrote:
Interesting thread on the Nikon forum about everyone wanting to jump ship to the 7d since Nikon hasn't released a d400 yet...grass is always greener...
Yeah, as a Nikon shooter I have to admit it's kind of embarrassing because in reality, the 7DII really is just an incremental upgrade from the 7D. But there's increasing concern in the Nikon camp that Nikon has jettisoned the semi-pro DX market and are trying to push high-end DX shooters to FX. Now Nikon's FX line is pretty impressive, but I need DX for what I do and if Nikon limits DX to the low end models like the D7100, there's no way they're going to include pro-level features like 10 FPS and 65 AF points in a consumer body that sells for $1K...just no way. The shame is that Nikon COULD step up to the plate and bring out a real competitor to the 7DII, but at this point is seems increasingly unlikely.
Toss Canon's unsurpassed supertele selection/performance into the mix and Canon represents a viable solution, sans the sub-par APS-C sensor performance. Is it enough to make me switch? Maybe. Right now the smartest thing Nikon could do to protect it's market share would be to leak news of a semi-pro DX body, but that's not likely going to happen.
jctriguy wrote:
I'm still sticking to my opinion that the masses don't know about DR and don't really care. The current cameras are so good that most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a lowly canon FF and an Exmoor. Most people can't tell the difference between a crop and FF sensor either.
I would bet the farm on your opinion holding up.
Tekkies on forums tend to speak for the masses when they don't relate to the masses in any way.
Glen_C wrote:
I would bet the farm on your opinion holding up.
Tekkies on forums tend to speak for the masses when they don't relate to the masses in any way.
I think for mass consumers, low light photography is more important than 2 stops of DR. I also don't think the average mass consumer will bother shooting raw and pushing the blacks to take advantage of The hidden DR. And I agree, they won't understand why 14 stops is important to photographing soccer games and dinner parties. However, proper light exposure and shutter speed for indoor lighting, yes they will understand that.
Ziffl3 wrote:
Why is 4K video important? So far we have only movies ... at a theater where we can see 4K content.
4K video is nice especially for a sports camera because individual frames from the video are 8MP, which is enough for some cropping and then reasonably sized prints or other display.
As for video, even if the target is 1080p, it's opens up a lot of possiblities for postproduction.
aladyforty wrote:
seems to be a lot of bitching going on across the net on various sites about this camera, wouldn't it be better to wait until its been thoroughly tested?
No because we like to bitch.
And damnit, we believe all the rumours we read, and if they don't turn out to be true, we bitch about that too.
Access wrote:
4K video is nice especially for a sports camera because individual frames from the video are 8MP, which is enough for some cropping and then reasonably sized prints or other display.
.....
Except of course that video frames are typically shot at a shutter speed of something like 1/60s which is way too low to freeze the motion in sports. So you will get frames out of your video with nicely blurred motion which won't be of much use as stills.
myron lee wrote:
I think for mass consumers, low light photography is more important than 2 stops of DR. I also don't think the average mass consumer will bother shooting raw and pushing the blacks to take advantage of The hidden DR. And I agree, they won't understand why 14 stops is important to photographing soccer games and dinner parties. However, proper light exposure and shutter speed for indoor lighting, yes they will understand that.
This is precisely why Canon continues on their established course of product development, and coincidentally, why they still have the lion's share of the camera market. They tend not to listen to the 1% of the market that lives vicariously through internet forums (or is that fora?)
curious80 wrote:
Except of course that video frames are typically shot at a shutter speed of something like 1/60s which is way too low to freeze the motion in sports. So you will get frames out of your video with nicely blurred motion which won't be of much use as stills.
Yeah you generally have to do one or the other, not both. If you are going to shoot video with the intent of getting stills, you set the video to the desired shutter speed, ie. 1/2000 to freeze motion. It makes for poor video overall because the motion is generally too choppy at 24fps or 30fps.
The only time this broke down was with some of the earlier attempts at video in DSLRs where you ended up with the 'rolling shutter' effect. But I've never had this problem taking video frames from Canon's cameras. With 1080p video it is only about good enough for general web usage or display on a computer monitor / tv. 4K video would be substantially better, provided they increase the bitrate and use high profile h.264.
fraga wrote:
I could be wrong, but I believe that this "new" sensor is basically a 70d sensor with very minor hardware changes and the differences we might be getting in IQ will mostly derive from software, not hardware.
Case in point: 70d has better IQ than 7d in jpeg, not so much (much smaller difference) in raw. I think the same will happen with the 7DMII.
Also, better high iso will likely come at the expense of detail/sharpness, that is to say that it will probably be just in-camera NR and not actual better hardware performance.
I wish I am wrong, because I am interested in this camera and apart from the sensor, I see a lot of goodies thrown in there and from the spec sheet, it has improved in many areas.
The AF does seem impressive (at least in specs) and the 10fps surprised me as well, since this has previously been exclusively series 1 territory.
I would have liked a fully articulated touch screen, but I guess that would be asking for too much, since we got 10fps and a theoretically very good AF, among other goodies.
But I do fear that regarding IQ, we won't be getting much better than the 70d.
Regarding 4k video, my $299 cell phone has it... need I say more?...Show more →
I believe the articulating screen would have negated the 1D quality water/dust sealing. I would have liked to have gotten the 4K video, as I do quite a bit of video of birds. I know they lost 1 sell, as my son is now going to buy the Panasonic GH4 body and Metabones adaptor, just get the 4K video.
But hey, I have mine on order and am exited about it. Maybe a firmware update will release 4K video after the body gets long in tooth, or maybe Magic Lantern can somehow unlock it.
Taking a hurried peak at a 7D2 RAW file, it seems like the gain vertical banding issue of the 7D may be entirely gone. Only took a very harried look though. It's hard to tell because the 7D2 has such a small black outer frame area in the RAW and I didn't have the program to check for the gain type in the mids and brights but it seems like it might be gone, none of the shots are close to lens cap shots, but there is a chance they got rid of all or nearly all of the offset banding at low ISO all together. So that is the very good and impressive news with possible both the 7D's weird vertical gain banding and the typical Canon offset dark shadow banding very low or gone, maybe.
The bad is that the random read noise still shows no improvements since 2007 whatsoever, as far as I can tell. It seems like it will be extremely close to the exact same DR as the 7D. The read noise might even be a touch higher than on the 7D. Not quite sure yet, didn't locate quite the proper 7D file or my old numbers. Without the banding, the effective usable DR should be higher though even though it seems like the engineering measured DR might be anywhere from a bit worse than the 7D to a trace better.
myron lee wrote:
I think for mass consumers, low light photography is more important than 2 stops of DR. I also don't think the average mass consumer will bother shooting raw and pushing the blacks to take advantage of The hidden DR. And I agree, they won't understand why 14 stops is important to photographing soccer games and dinner parties. However, proper light exposure and shutter speed for indoor lighting, yes they will understand that.
Hmm. Well, I think "mass consumers" are more likely to be shooting cell phones or P&S rather than a DSLR at all. And for the "mass consumers" who do shoot DSLRs they are more likely to be shooting Rebels than 7Ds.
I think a key market on the 7D line would be "advanced amateurs" and those people I think do tend to be interested in more of the technical characteristics and benefits of the product...otherwise, why would they be buying the more expensive camera instead of a cheaper alternative?
jctriguy wrote:
Excellent post. So much opinion and speculation wrapped into one paragraph.
I'm still sticking to my opinion that the masses don't know about DR and don't really care. The current cameras are so good that most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a lowly canon FF and an Exmoor. Most people can't tell the difference between a crop and FF sensor either.
But who cares about the masses...not me. I care about my needs and I know the difference between a camera with great DR and one with compromised DR.
aladyforty wrote:
seems to be a lot of bitching going on across the net on various sites about this camera, wouldn't it be better to wait until its been thoroughly tested?
Canonites are complaining about 7DII and Nikonians complaining about D750. Canon and Nikon have no idea what to do any more to please their customers. Have we become a generation of complainers, or do Canon and Nikon screwing up lately?
bgbs wrote:
Canonites are complaining about 7DII and Nikonians complaining about D750. Canon and Nikon have no idea what to do any more to please their customers. Have we become a generation of complainers, or do Canon and Nikon screwing up lately?
Well truthfully how stupid is Nikon with 1/4000 on the D750? The D750 is nearly a perfect camera.
chez wrote:
But who cares about the masses...not me. I care about my needs and I know the difference between a camera with great DR and one with compromised DR.
The masses eat at McDonalds....nuff said.
I don't care about what you say either, but please read the thread and comprehend what is being said. Read retro's post about the demise of canon, the firing of the CEO because of a lack of DR/MP in the new bodies, etc, etc. No one said you had to care about the masses, but Canon certainly seems to care about them. They make a lot of money from people buying equipment, even if those people don't know what the equipment does or the tech details behind it.
No one will ever complain and say your needs are wrong, that said, Canon does have a responsibility of keeping their investors happy.
They are selling a boatload of Rebels and whatever strategy they are employing current seems to keep their stocks pretty happy, even if it disappoints a few hardcore shooters.
chez wrote:
But who cares about the masses...not me. I care about my needs and I know the difference between a camera with great DR and one with compromised DR.
bgbs wrote:
Canonites are complaining about 7DII and Nikonians complaining about D750. Canon and Nikon have no idea what to do any more to please their customers. Have we become a generation of complainers, or do Canon and Nikon screwing up lately?
You have a small percentage of users that occupy the forum space combined with a small subset of those users who are complaining about the 7D2/D750. Both Canon and Nikon know that they will never please 100% of their user base so that is a hopeless mission. I would predict that both those bodies sell extremely well and that is all that really matters.
bgbs wrote:
Canon and Nikon have no idea what to do any more to please their customers.
Really? They just happen to lead all the other camera manufactures in the world in sales because they have so many displeased customers.
Doesn't look to me like most Canon or Nikon users are jumping over to Sony because of their sensors. I guess many of us can just do what we want or need to do with Canon and Nikon sensors, eh?
ggreene wrote:
that they will never please 100% of their user base so that is a hopeless mission. I would predict that both those bodies sell extremely well and that is all that really matters.
Yeah, I figure at least someone at Canon knows they are behind in sensors and have run the ROI (return on investment) numbers for that type of sensor research and decided not to pursue it.
