Renzokuken: I'm from Asia and i live in Asia.
The DP team said they "garnered some surprisingly open admissions"
but if you really take time and read what he said, it's basically all sarcasm and arrogance.
"If another company made a sensor that we believed to be truly the best quality, we would not hesitate to use it."
He's implying that Canon sensors are superior in every way and no one can compete with them. Did the DP team really failed to pick up his sarcasm while interviewing him?
"If Sony Sensors are for a view photo-situations a 5% better -than Canon Sensors until now -so who cares?"
A lot of Canon shooters do. And the difference is far greater than 5%.
D Gold: >Users of the 5DS and 5DS R have much higher, stricter standards.
Respectfully, this statement indicates either a lack of understanding of the amateur photographer of today or was mistranslated. I kind of doubt the mistranslation, as that assertion is made more than once.
If anything, a lot of amateurs want at least as much, and perhaps more than many professionals. Just a perspective, but Canon has a rich history of saying, "You want a better image, or autofocus, etc, you are going to pay". Nikon, the same, but a bit better about feature sets and image quality on the lower end.
In the end, I hope the competition from Fuji, Sony, Olympus, etc, continue to put pressure on the big 2.
You do nice work.
I'm surprised that, all things being equal, you wouldn't prefer to have the better data in your file to work with - i.e. more dynamic range. You might call it underexposing by 5 stops and pushing the shadows, but in practice, it means more highlight detail is preserved. (And by the way, I doubt the Nikons or Sonys give you 5 more stops of DR.)
"I don't care about mirrorless in that category or meaningless 5stop underexposure shadow details etc.."
Meaningless? With reduced dynamic range, your choices are: you preserve highlights and loose shadows, or vice versa, or you combine multiple exposures in situations where it might not be necessary had your sensor captured more data. You find this meaningless?
Martin Huisman: Could someone explain to me the reasoning of the executives of Nikon on the increased minimum ISO of 200?
I must be confusing concepts, because in my reasoning an increased minimum ISO from 64 to 200 means that the sensor is actually less sensitive.As this is nearly 2 'stops' I tend to think that that's where the 4x more sensitivity of the sensor comes from...?
Once the sensitivity of the red channel was increased (it's accepting more light), it had to be balanced with the blue and green channels, which were unchanged and therefore less sensitive in comparison. Thus, the change in base ISO.
Artpt: Directed @Rishi, do you think manufacturers will get sophisticated enough to have camera bodies fine tune their PDAF with various lens using the CDAF in camera...much like manual white balance with indoor lighting?
I rough comparison is a printer's/scanner's calibration process...
Just a thought?...and as always, thanks.
@rhpetrusI'd believe that if the cameras required a few still moments in live view CDAF and again with PDAF with each new mounted lens. Since that isn't the case, I doubt any sort of auto fine tuning is taking place.
Deliverator: So, is Canon going to fix this issue in their 6D, 5DIII, and 1D X?
(I'm getting a bit tired of the trolls, so I thought I'd troll them...)
Look in the mirror. See one yet?
So, is Canon going to fix this issue in their 6D, 5DIII, and 1D X?
mpgxsvcd: I know one thing for sure. This entry level Nikon camera will be better than the next 3 generations of the entry level Canon Rebel cameras. None of them offer the bang for the buck that mirror-less does especially if you shoot video as well. However, Nikon is at least trying to make their products remotely competitive.
@PredatorsPreyI agree fully that the single DxOMark score is nearly useless. However, the DxO site posts graphs of all their measurements that allow you to make a much more informed decision. For instance, based on the DxOMark score the D7100 would appear to be a far better camera than the 7DII. But if you dig into the dynamic range measurements at higher ISOs where the birders and sports shooters are likely to be photographing, you see the sensors perform pretty much the same, making the 7DII's buffer and autofocus that much more compelling for those types of shooters.
www_zeeshan_de: Missing the innovative A7S review, missing the innovative A7 II review, but what we got here is the nothing new Nikon D750 review...
These mirrorless fanboys are insufferable...
audiobomber: What is the basis for saying the 7D II outperforms the a6000 and K-3 for noise? DXOMark shows the 7D II with the lowest score of the three for SNR.a6000: ISO 1347K-3: ISO 12167D II: ISO 1082
Even Thom Hogan, who mostly shoots Nikon, has some criticisms for those who look at only the DxO number, and not all of the available data:http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/do-you-believe-in-dxomark.html
I wouldn't rely on a single, baked down number. DxO provide a lot of detailed information, if you take the time to look for it:
Click on the Measurements tab, then select the Dynamic range tab below it. The graph shows that at base ISO up to ~ISO 400, the a6000 and the D7100 have quite a bit more dynamic range than the 7DII. However, starting from ~ISO 800 or so, there is very little difference between them. By ~ISO 3200, the sensors' performances are nearly identical.
If you're shooting a lot of portraits and landscapes at lower ISOs, the Sony and the Nikon are probably better choices for you.
If you're a birder or sports shooter who does a lot of shooting at ISO 800 and above, the 7DII's autofocus, frame rate and buffer size make it the obvious choice.
If you're in between those two, well, it's hard to go wrong with any of them. ;-)
A better open standard already exists. JPEG2000 and supports any bit depth and colour space you want to use.
You get a lot of bang for your buck in terms of image quality with the D3300, which is why I voted for it.
Rosember: Interested in small sensor tech or not, every photog should be grateful to the smartphone industries. Compared to photography alone smartphones is a BIG revenue business - and lots of $$ are spent in making these little cams better. Bigger sensors will benefit from this development, too - and get cheaper as well as the development costs will be returned mostly by smartphone buyers (uhh, us again?). :)
Already stated: CMOS was first used on small sensors. I'm sure there are other examples.
The argument that all sensor developments progress from large to small is clearly false. Reality is far more interesting than that.
I don't think there are any BSI m43, APS, or FX sensors, either.
shutterbud: This is a beautifully-made camera with wonderful AF, good ergonomics and a sensor waay behind the times- an APS-C flagship from the biggest gun struggling to compete with u4/3 in IQ? Come on! The fact is, many photographers do NOT shoot BIF or F1 cars and for them, this camera is too compromised, despite the loveliness. The benefits from Canon's back-catalogue of parts do nothing to improve many shots. I like the idea of this camera and IQ is 'good enough', but I would never spend so much money on something so big that I know will give me inferior IQ in most circumstances to a Nikon D5300. A GH4, XT1 or A7 offer far more benefits to more photographers than this "Second Flagship". I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is a real shame Canon didn't use a Sony sensor. If they had used the D7000 sensor, this would be King of the Crop. Sadly, it merely confirms what many have suspected for a long time. Canon tech is not improving. This is bizarre
According to the DxO tests, the 7DII has less DR than the D7100 at low ISOs, but its DR is equal at medium and high ISOs, where the sports and wildlife shooters will be using it the most. Looks like Canon shooters have themselves a gem.
nemark: To David Wentworth:"a 35 mm equivalent f/1.7. The camera would not allow me shoot at f/1.7 when within a certain distance to a subject. Instead, the aperture would automatically "correct" to f/2.2 or f/2.8, even when in full manual mode."
I suspect that it is the same reason why did East Germany Jena Zeiss do the same thing with some of their lenses (2.8/35mm Flectogon and 3.5/135mm Sonnar at least). And the reason is simple: as you focus closer and closer, your lens moves further from film/sensor surface becoming "a longer focal length, while diameter of the hole ("aperture") that passes light to the sensor remains same. The ammount of light that reaches sensor is reduced. That is also why 2.8 macro lens when set to 1:1, becomes actually f5.6 (in other words, you`ll need for 2EV longer exposure).
He said the effective focal length changes, not the external length of the lens.
ThomasSwitzerland: Ken Rockwell has just published snapshots on the D750 with the 20mm f/1.8.
To me this represents outstanding journalistic quality in time and precision. Why cannot the so much larger <dpreview> deliver?
KR always shoots in jpeg basic. He says all pros do.
His family shots are almost always in small-basic and landscapes in large-basic.
"I never shoot raw. Why would I? Raw is a waste of time and space, and doesn't look any better than JPG even when you can open the files."
"The 7DII is clearly at least as good as any existing APS--C at high ISO, and better than most."
I've seen no evidence yet that it's as good as the D7100/A77. It might very well be, but we'll have to wait for the test results to come in.
Of course, given the 7D II's superior buffer and autofocus, a little sacrifice in DR might be worth the compromise, depending on your application.
Maybe somebody doesn't want to shoot wide open while taking pictures with their "super fast sports camera". Or maybe they want to use a teleconverter? Or maybe their zoom lenses are f/5.6 at the long end? Or... you get the idea.
It's not hard to think up advantages for clean data at high ISOs...