If Canon had lossy RAW compression, a crusade would already on its way...
User9362470513: Whenever someone asks me what camera to buy, I say the same thing: get what feels comfortable in your hand. All cameras take great photos in just about any light. Some manufacturers offer better lens ranges (I recently moved to the Nikon D750 from Canon and love their 1.8 range of primes), so if you want lots of lenses, that is a consideration. But overall, choose which body size and shape you want and go from there.
Oh, and then it is imperative that you complain and whine and bitch about every other camera brand and get really defensive about your choice of camera and lenses at every opportunity because the world of digital photography is marginally more grown up than primary school.
Yeah nice, but there is just a little more to that
It seems like you moved much faster with the Nikon and even faster with the Canon. Maybe for that reason there was no footage of you moving the Sony camera in and out.
You are also testing the AF drive speed of the lens and not the AF ability of the camera.
This latest test seems a bit ridiculous. This Sony camera seems like a great choice for many, including the cats 'n kids and landscape shooter as long as you dont need un-neutered raw support or an overly strong body (or god forbid, prefer optical viewfinder).
But you are trying a bit too hard with those latest "tests"
tampadave: She lost me at "puke."
it was pretty funny. I have never noticed that with 7D colors though
Joe Mayer: All I can say is it's a good thing Canon didn't ask her to review the 7D. No one would have purchased one. "Puke" and loud shutter? How about a personal hands-on from a working pro who used to use a 7D and find out what if anything they find improved on the mk2?
I think a loud shutter is a real problem in a footbal stadium ....
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
I'd rather have the 7DII anyday over a A77II, so thats why I am getting the 7DII and you have an A77II.
Just be happy with your camera
its .. its almost as if someone who doesnt need a super fast sports camera .... SHOULDNT GET A FAST SPORTS CAMERA!!!!
My forehead is sore from all the face palming after reading those comments here.
The other thing is that it is possible to own more than one camera ....
Bill T.: Looking at these admittedly beta jpegs, I see the wisdom of Nikon not allowing pre-release images to be published. My cell phone is not far behind in quality.
@ Bill T.
I think the only thing I want to see is noise performance of the 7DII, for which the lens and photos hardly matter.
The Sony aficionados want to see DR. You can see that too in those photos.
plasnu: These are joke, right? What happened to the highlight? Not different from the images from $200 EOSM on Ebay.
clearly, the EOSM is a better camera. I will cancel my 7DII order and get an EOSM instead.
MAubrey: You know...traditionally in headline writing, if there's a question the answer is invariably know. So the question is: are you communicating the right thing or the wrong thing?
Meh. Whats next? Think for ourselves???
got it. a little better then
This and a few pics:
Five years is a long time in the camera world, but that's how long Canon's EOS 7D was on the market - buoyed by a midlife firmware update that until recently had kept it impressively competitive against APS-C offerings from other manufacturers.
Canon has not been idle in the past few years, it seems, and the new EOS 7D Mark II is a huge upgrade over the original 7D, offering improvements to every aspect of its feature set. We got access to a pre-production sample recently - click through our slideshow for a hands-on product tour."
You mean the two paragraphs of nothing?
I think the posts of people demanding touchscreen via firmware update are more informative ...
By looking at a few pictures of the camera? Dude, really?
Is this just a slideshow ? How does it relate to the title ?
nycgazelle: Jesus Christ People! I can't believe all the stupid complainers about this. 9.99 is two cups of coffee a month. Life is expensive...THIS most certainly isn't. I like it because for the first time in years..I did buy photoshop at full pop once...I can have current versions and not pirate it. I feel great about giving Adobe 10 bucks a month because its an amount I don't even think about when it auto deducts. This prevents everyone who couldn't plop down X amount of dollars at once for the software to pay a modest fee and feel good about themselves and enjoy a tremendously awesome product.
The main issue is that once people sign up for the "cheap" deal and adobe has moved enough people onto their subscription only deal, they will raise the price as much as they want
How long do you think it will stay 9.99 for?
And what will happen once the majority of people has their photos in their propriety systems?
ThomasSwitzerland: I am still a loyal customer of Nikon. But this uninspiring D4s confirms my move. Step by step I get rid of those old world huge cameras. They seem to me like dinosaurs from the past.
I do not want to bash because I believe in Nikon’s excellent sensors’ computer code and ergonomics. I also had the Canon FF cameras with L-lenses. I sold them at very good prices some time ago. I questioned more and more to hike in the mountains with those “tons” of black cases with a huge backpack limiting moves and fun.
Now I still got the D5200 – pros will smile – and mirrorless; and wait for the next generation of cellphone/integrated cameras to migrate to. It’s like with the stock markets. Buy early and sell into the last waves.
In a couple of years, no one can imagine that we took photos with those huge, heavy, and strange looking cameras.
Sometimes it is decision point to liberate. Less load is more joy. More joy and dedication produce better pictures.
I dont know if those cameras were meant for the guy who walks around with it all day .... For that they make tiny DSLR and mirrorless.
Things like D4s will probably be rather used at sporting events where their size and weight isnt really an issue. Esp. when on a tripod or monopod with a large 300mm + lens ...
Matt: Who are those people who cant do "pure" photography unless some modern controls are stripped away from their camere?
"Oh noz, I cant take good photos because my camera offers all those features that I dont want to use but must use!"
give me a break. If someone is such an accomplished photogrpaher that the pure thought of modern controls ruins their photos, then either give it up or put your D800 rig in M and MF or whatever else.
The ultimate idiocy is the use of a cable release instead of a wireless remote shutter release. if someone is so stuck in the past that they must use a cable remote release and by doing so risk vibrating their camera slightly instead of a RF or IR remote release that would assure the camera isnt shaking then its pretty clear that the retro camera is just a fad to show of that they are some photo master because they dont use any modern gizmos that would distract their superior artistic skills. Those people should give it up
Why would I attach a cable to my camera risking to jerk or vibrate it just for the sake of "Hey look at me, I am so retro and artistic!".
To give up technological benefits just to look retro-hip seems a bit silly to me ...
Its dirt cheap? Great but if you cant foot $20 for an RF remote, maybe buying that cool retro camera was a poor choice to begin with ....A RF remote is small and weighs also almost nothing. If you can lug around a retro hip camera and a tripod (and I am sure we not be using carbon as thats not retro and would take away our artistic skills ;) ) than an RF remote will dogreat it uses no batteries, but your camera does anyways and batteries in IR remotes last years, so thats hardly a concern.it doesnt need fixing until you bugger up the threads or kink it ...You know if you must screw a cable release in your retro styled camera to take really artistic pictures, then great. Whatever helps. For my part I will use all features that help me taking photos.
Who are those people who cant do "pure" photography unless some modern controls are stripped away from their camere?