Stollen1234: Canon Photography revolutionCanon is again setting the standard and taking the photgrapy industry by stormCanon 7 D mark II is stunning with amazing technical specifications and feautures.
Keith, thank you for confirming my statement by your actions. Even more so since you also said that Canon is class leading when they are no longer. Maybe at one point they were, but not today. They may take the prize for a feature here or there, but when it comes to the whole package, they have lost to the competition a while ago.
While your name calling is childish, I clearly hit a soft spot. Let me enlighten you:
My comment is true and can apply to many other brands. There are those that will stick to a brand regardless of how good or not they are just because it is what they are used to, are invested too heavily in it, or are nostalgic for when a brand was supreme. You've got the same kind of people that stick with Nikon, Sony, etc. and outside of the cameras you have the same for those that drive nothing but Honda or Lexus despite there being better products out there. This is what I am referencing. Maybe I should have said fanatic instead of lover, but fanatic is so overused.
To be honest, I am a little underwhelmed by what Canon brought to the table. After all this waiting, I was expecting...more. Other than the new AF sensor, nothing really stands out, especially for the price point they are aiming for. And even with the new AF sensor, it remains to be seen how much of an improvement it offers over its predecessors and competition.
Everything else looks to be either recycled from their other models or have only added just an ever so slight improvement to stay in line with the competition. It would be one thing if this released 2-3 years after the 7D, but its been 5 years! I would think after 5 years, and for this price, they would have done more.
Regardless, the Canon lovers will eat it up because of their blind devotion to the brand, their 7D needs to be replaced, and Canon will not give them any other options to choose from for another 3-5 years. And Canon knows that and is banking on it. One day it will bite them.
peevee1: "weighing just 2 lbs 11 oz"
"Just"?!? It is more than 1.2kg! For comparison, Nikon 24-120/4 VR weighs 670g, and it is for DSLR, where 24mm has to be heavily retrofocus!Twice the weight, twice the price, no even 24mm AoV - wasn't short focal distance supposed to bring advantages?
Regarding "the world's first 35mm full-frame lens with power zoom", this is an outright lie. Minolta had powerzooms more than 20 years ago, Canon had powerzoom 24 years agohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAXiotoiXb8
You are missing the point, those were not designed for digital ILCs. And with the disclaimer, their marketing is not lying. Misleading, sure. But a lot of marketing does that if you don't read the fine print. Fastest this, smallest that, etc. We've all seen them and they make great headlines, but it really requires reading the small print to see what claims to those titles they really have.
Sure, those older lenses might work, but they were not designed for digital use. Because of that, Sony can get away with their marketing claim with the use of their disclaimer.
Read the footnote/disclaimer tied to the claim and you'll see that it isn't really a lie, you just failed to read all the details.
In other words: it is the first full frame lens with power zoom for digital ILCs or, more specifically, designed for digital ILCs.
Great! Now let's see them do the same for the A77II.
Jogger: Makes no sense to not include the Nikon Df or D4s.. in terms of sensor performance, they are the most logical ones to include in a test of low-mp FF sensors.
That is true for their reviews and using the studio comparison tool, but in this particular instance they wanted to compare these cameras using the same exact lens in an outside the studio scenario.
It would make more sense with the Nikon Df than the D4s due to the price difference between all the cameras, despite them using the same/similar sensor.
While in comparing sensors it makes sense, for this scenario it would not be a complete identical comparison since the Df would be using a different lens. One of the points of this comparison was to see how all three cameras compared using the same exact lens.
What may be a better comparison is to have a separate comparison using the A7S, A7R, and the Df with the same Nikon lens mounted on all three of them.
JamesD28: The only 2 nude photos in the whole challenge take the top 2 places...... coincidence?
I didn't miss the point, it's quite obvious what you were implying. But you said that the only two nudes took the top places when clearly that wasn't true.
I do agree that I think there are better pictures or ones that are more clever in the use of the challenge subject, but the votes come in from forum members and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I see it all the time at my camera club too. A picture doesn't always have to be technically superior, it just needs to appeal to the viewer/judges better than the other photos.
Entry that took 19th place. Very nice black and white that is deceiving at a distance. Pretty tasteful, has character.
Apparently, you didn't look at enough of the submissions to see that is not the case.
Stefan Sobol: This shows the problem with using "the cloud". If the provider of the service you are using has technical issues or just goes out of business, the application that you rely on or the data the your business needs could be unavailable or lost. Even if the provider is still operating, if a guy crashes his car into the pole that holds up your internet line (for example), it could be days til the internet provider sends someone around to fix it (ever tried getting cable TV installed in a timely manner?).
Every internet provider contract says they are not liable for any damages if the service is unavailable for any reason, just that they will fix it as soon as practical (i.e. when they get around to it). I'm sure the EULA for Adobe Creative Suite also says pretty much the same thing.
I might use "the cloud" for remote access storage (e.g. Dropbox). However, I would not ever use it as a necessary service or as my sole repository.
On site storage is cheap but a high risk if it is the same place you keep your backups.
The benefit of cloud (ie, offsite) storage is the ability to reduce the risk of loss due to a catastrophic failure or disaster. A "don't put all your eggs in one basket" situation, so to speak.
Using cloud storage isn't bad providing you don't rely solely on it, just like how local backups are not bad providing you don't depend only on them.
gmke: I am NOT interested in this camera because of some Sony snake oil. Here we have the world's premiere maker of photo sensors building a defect into a camera design that seriously hampers deep ISO. The claim is that the "translucent" mirror only steals 1/3 of an f-stop. Go to the SLT-A77 jpeg noise page and choose the Oly E-M5, Nikon D5100, and Panasonic G3 for comparison, all at normal or standard noise reductions. Note that the noises at ISO-3200 on the E-M5 and D5100 are very well controlled. Then drop the ISO back to 800 and notice how noisy the A77 getup is. Roughly speaking, one might conclude that the translucent mirror makes the A77 as bad as the four thirds sensor in the Panasonic G3. That's a two stop drop, not 1/3. These observations make it very difficult to care about improvements in the AF system.
123Mike, the reason people call it a JPEG engine or JPEG processing is because when saving an image as JPEG, the image processor is applying certain techniques that only get applied to images being saved as JPEGs (they do not get applied to the RAW). So while JPEG compression is a standard, the work done to those images that is exclusive to just the images that get saved as JPEGs are not.
To just call it image processing or processing engine can mislead those that are not informed to think that the same work and processing is being done to every image regardless if it is JPEG or RAW. Calling it JPEG engine or JPEG processing let's individuals know of specific processing steps that are exclusive to images being saved as JPEG (lens correction, DRO, area specific noise reduction, etc.).
Abuelo Paul: Having owned my A77 for 18months, and fired off almost 30000 frames, I won't be upgrading yet. There appear to be very few benefits in this markII version. My main criticisms of the A77 are: Poor high ISO resultsConstant problems with sensor spots after changing lensesPoor after sales service ( lost the rubber eyepiece and can't get a replacement)But on the plus side:Easy to usesuperb resultsEVF previews the shotMinolta glass compatibilityAll in all why change when I'm happy with what I've got. I had the EOS 500D before.
I find my A77 does better at preventing dust on the sensor than most other cameras, especially those that have moving mirrors. While not a 100% preventive, I find the non-moving SLT does a pretty good job at minimizing the amount of dust that appears on the sensor.
My A700 had a higher likelihood of getting dust on the senor.
First, you are not comparing sensor sensitivity as much as you are really comparing JPEG processing capability. I'll admit that compared to the current cameras, the A77's JPEG processing is not the best. The A77II has a much improved JPEG processing algorithm that should help improve image quality. But since I shoot only RAW, it doesn't really affect me either way.
Second, go back to those other cameras and look at their EXIF information using identical ISOs. You will see the shutter speed varies which will add to the discrepancy in sensor sensitivity. This gives as around 1/3-1/2 of extra advantage to the other cameras that are shooting at a slower shutter speed than the A77 at the same ISO.
Lastly, it isn't a 2 stop difference between them when you factor the above. Just look at the other review sites that do a better job at equalizing the playing field.
snow14: Sony DSLR always good on papers and that is it. the other thing i yet to see good looking DSLR from them (beauty speaking ) it is important ! isn't it?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so your opinion may differ than mine when it comes to its looks.
But more important than looks is how does it feel in the hand, how does it handle, and does the button layout feel natural?
Since it is practically identical to the A77, which I own, I can say that for me the answer to all of those above is : Comfortable, very well, and yes!
The A77 is a very comfortable camera to hold with very well placed buttons. It is easy use with and without gloves. It's got a solid build with a nice heft to it. Add the vertical grip and it becomes quite a camera to work with.
Epkappa: If I say that i prefer, honestly, the images before the calibration? The calibrated one looks too neon for me..
Are you viewing these images on a wide gamut display?
If so and if you are using a browser that doesn't recognize monitor profiles, the colors may look more vibrant than they really are.
retro76: Personally. I am all about 'attractive' color, not necessarily accurate color. Color taste is quite subjective. I kinda like the Before Examples over the After calibration results.
Wrong comment. Disregard.
NikoKiko: One thing nobody mentions here is that manufacturer states that the colorchecker is only good for two years and after that you should buy another one. They say the printed colors start to change after that time and your color calibrations won't be precise any more. I have one colorchecker passport from 3 years ago, so maybe it can not be trusted anymore, who knows.Seem rather expensive if you need to change it every 2 years. And they should also print manufacturing date on the thing in that case, so you know.Of course you'll need to change only if you aquare new cameras or want to recalibrate after it .... "expires"LoL
How much they change depends on how much UV exposure they get.
The nice thing about the SpyderCheckr from DataColor is it has a "wear" indicator that changes from Red to White when the amount of time it has been exposed to light can potentially impact the accuracy of the colors.
tabloid: One picture looks slightly lighter than the other…is that it.
No. If that is all you are seeing, then your monitor must be way off in calibration. I see more than just that on the uncalibrated display I am viewing it on.
The most obvious changes are in the tone and warmth of some of the colors. But it isn't all the colors changing, so it isn't like someone added a warmth filter and called it a day. Each color is receiving its own treatment of adjustments. For example, oranges and browns may see the biggest change while blues may see no changes.
Iliah Borg: Steve, the following needs a complete revision:"As I am capturing raw files, I will have the camera set to the AdobeRGB color space and not sRGB, which is better suited to JPEG shooting. AdobeRGB gives a wider color gamut, and is the best option for raw images that will subsequently be edited on a computer. You should use the same color space for both the calibration shot and subsequent images which will use the same profile."
The colour space setting in the camera does not affect raw data.
That's exactly what I was thinking when I read that line.