-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The 7D2 is spec'ed like a 1-series. And people still complain...?
- Thread starter cs hauser
- Start date
-
- Tags
- canon eos 7d
No, it didn't.
Sony's sensors has been kicking Canon's butt long before the 7D. The Nikon D90 came out one whole year before the 7D, and it still scored higher at DxO (73 vs 66). The only difference between now and then is that people whine a lot louder these days.
Wow, you are being seriously ridiculous about resolution. You're bashing the 7D2 because it "only" has 20 megapixels? Let me ask you a few things:
- What is the highest resolution available for current Sony APS-C cameras? 24 megapixels.
- What is the highest resolution available for current Nikon APS-C cameras? 24 megapixels.
- What is the highest resolution available for current Fuji APS-C cameras? 16 megapixels.
- What is the highest resolution available for Micro Four Thirds cameras? 16 megapixels.
I get the impression you're suffering from a bad case of gear envy. You've been blinded by the 36 megapixels on those full frame cameras... and now you want that kind of resolution on a sensor that's 1/3 the size of full frame.
Get a grip man.
Last edited:
Howard102273
Senior Member
is your attitude.
You have to understand, other people sometimes have different photographic needs than your own. Some people may legitimately want a sensor with higher resolution, better dynamic range and ISO performance. Trying to shout them down and defend Canon at all cost (and why would anyone do that?) is bigoted and childish.
You have to understand, other people sometimes have different photographic needs than your own. Some people may legitimately want a sensor with higher resolution, better dynamic range and ISO performance. Trying to shout them down and defend Canon at all cost (and why would anyone do that?) is bigoted and childish.
I really like the 24 MP from my Nex-7 and really appreciate its crop-ability over the 18 MP 7D. I do hope the 20.2 MP is an improvement in crop-ability on the 7DII. I would have preferred 24 MP on the 7DII but not at the expense of noisier images.
Keithgg
Forum Enthusiast
Just think how many photographs of cats we can shortly expect :-(
Roll on next spring when the street price gets a bit more sensible.
Keith
I still cannot believe the rumours about focus at f8.
I'll buy one for that alone.
Roll on next spring when the street price gets a bit more sensible.
Keith
I still cannot believe the rumours about focus at f8.
I'll buy one for that alone.
Jerry-astro
Forum Pro
+1000. Most of Karl's comments have had little value beyond amusement for quite some time as he refuses to acknowledge that it might be possible that other vendors have out-innovated Canon in some aspects of sensor design. Instead, we see a steady stream of apologist comments and putdowns about anything that doesn't have a Canon logo on it. It's woth a good chuckle here and there... that's about it IMHO.
Canon remains a tremendous innovator in many areas and the 7DMk2 will be an incredible tool for photographers that can best take advantage of what it brings to the market. But a healthy perspective on potential shortcomings rather than blind fanboyism has a lot more value here. Like any purchase decision, if the mix of features in a new product is a good match to your specific needs, then it's a winner for you. The grumbling we're seeing here (perhaps a touch premature) is a combination of missed expectations and possibly a less than optimal match to some photographers' needs and priorities.
Last edited:
The big question for me is price and what is the dynamic range like. A while back, I was determined to get a 1D X. My wife convinced me to try one first, so I contacted CPS and had them send me one for two weeks. I spent two weeks shooting with it and I was floored with how poor the dynamic range is. Sure it was fast and had all of the features I liked, but the image quality was crap. The embarassing part about it was that one night I was shooting a kids baseball game and my buddy had his D610. In every shot of mine the sky was blown out, (we were shooting into the sun a bit) but his shots had great sky detail and the kids weren't just silhouettes. I changed my mind about getting the 1D as quite frankly just a faster burst rate wasn't worth it. I sit here now trying to decide whether or not to sell all of my gear (a half dozen L lenses, 5D Mark III and 7D) and switch to Nikon or wait and see what Canon comes out with. So far I'm leaning towards Nikon.
If Canon pulls off the image quality and does it for a reasonable price, then great. But I won't pay half of what a 1D costs for the 7D2. It's not going to be 1D build quality. I've already learned that with the 7D (weather resistant seals) just mean it's tighter and so it's much more susceptible to humidity. I had my original 7d die due to moisture damage and its never been wet.
If Canon pulls off the image quality and does it for a reasonable price, then great. But I won't pay half of what a 1D costs for the 7D2. It's not going to be 1D build quality. I've already learned that with the 7D (weather resistant seals) just mean it's tighter and so it's much more susceptible to humidity. I had my original 7d die due to moisture damage and its never been wet.
Matt105483
Senior Member
At least Karl backs his strong opinion up with facts and technical detail beyond "Hurr durr, Leica lenses are best" and "The latest BS DxO test has shown Sony makes the best cameras"
Many people here happily jump on the "must have latest feature" regardless if it is any use or not and "this small technical detail makes or brakes a camera".
From here on it is only minutes until Elfroggio will swoop in to lock the thread, because the children are mean to each other
--
Canon EOS 400D
Sigma 24-70 HF
Canon 50 f1.8
Last edited:
Jerry-astro
Forum Pro
No he doesn't. His "facts" are actually opinions and they are not at all backed by whatever technical mumbo-jumbo he likes to throw into his posts. At the end of the day, it comes down to opinions, but he refuses to acknowledge that what he states are in fact just that: opinions. Instead, he chooses to pawn them off as facts and present them as such. If you elect to buy into that, more power to you, bud. In that case, I have a very nice, slightly used bridge for sale if you're interested.
And to your last comment, everyone's needs are different. Many folks have been waiting 5 years hoping for some improvement in IQ at least equivalent to what competition is offering. For them, this is of paramount importance, with the other feature enhancements being gravy but not central to a purchase decision. That is perfectly legitimate and if your own priorities are different, then more power to you. I'm sure you'll be delighted with your shiny new camera. But in fairness, these IQ gripes are perfectly legitimate based on whatever data is available right now (though maybe just a little premature until we have some real image samples to work with).
Limburger
Veteran Member
Not in the market for an upgrade myself.
More MPs would compromise burst rate and buffer depth. If the specs are correct Canon imho has a winner.
More MPs would compromise burst rate and buffer depth. If the specs are correct Canon imho has a winner.
R
rrccad
Guest
it's only a 1.09 effective crop difference between a 20 versus 24Mp camera.
Karl Gnter Wnsch
Forum Pro
Nope, it's those that have long since left and keep returning, telling us how crummy the gear is we have. That's it what's wrong. And the thinking that technology will be the saviour and Canon only needs to buy from someone else to make everything good. It wont because costs will rise (Canon has the fabs and would have to lay off a lot of people when they shut them down) - all on the (false) assumption that DR in their current sensors is insufficient. A sensor with 16 EV dynamic range (requiring at least an 18 Bit A/D conversion and consequently more memory for everything from image buffer to processing) wouldn't make you a better photographer, it will most likely make you a worse photographer because of the thinking that comes with it (DR is there, so let's use it)...
I have yet to lose a single image to the lacking DR - because for all intents and purposes (outside trump cards - remember the 6 wheel F1 car in your deck with with you could best the best of the rest and win?) even the 12 EV current Canon sensors can deliver are sufficient for anything but dull, lackluster images taken in bad photographic light (or by people who are too lazy to carry a tripod when warranted) which requires extensive editing to put right (or totally ruin by increasing that HDR look). - I have yet to see a single HDR where the viewer isn't completely confused what the subject of the photo really is. Showing your own indecision to the viewer is a surefire way to lose their attention - and you only got 8 EV to display your photo with, if you can't make up your darn mind what you want to focus on, then sure as .... the viewer will not be able to make the decision for you.
Nothing? Compare rear views of the 7DII without flip/twist LCD to 70D with it. More than 'nothing' different. Not only fewer controls easily accessible but the loss of the beloved 'joystick' which Canon has wisely carried forward from the 7D. (I think the 70D with its flip/twist bears at least as much resemblance to the 700D / T5i Rebel - a great lower-level camera with a lot of bang for the buck but in the opposite direction from the 7D II.)
The people most complaining about the LCD are the ones looking for a great all-around camera. Canon already makes the 70D for them. The 7DII (as the 7D) is designed to be a class leader for action /sports /wildlife photography, not intended to take flower and bug macros at 10fps.
It's kinda like if someone went to the Ferrari owners forum online and posted 'I don't want all those gauges, I can use warning lights and I would really rather have more cup holders. I can get that in an economy car, I would think I could have it in a Ferrari!'
Canon knows who their market is for the 7D II and if you are disappointed then it is because you want (need) a different kind of camera and the 7D WAS meant for someone else. Yes, there will be a few action / sports types who would like a flip/twist LCD but probably not at the cost of giving up the joystick and extra controls, which ARE relevant to what sort of use this camera was meant for.
Canon has improved the basic specs of the 7D to address the weaknesses (especially the very slow live-view AF) and improve its strengths. I would much rather have it as it is (even with the minor issue of low ISO DR, which can easily be worked around) than to turn a Ferrari into a minivan.
7DII:
70D:
For that matter, here's a 700D / Rebel T5i:
Last edited:
I was right with you til you described the sensor as 'inadequate'. First, we haven't seen any actual photos from the 7D II yet, have we? Second, unless 'adequate' means 36Mp, the issue of low ISO DR is minor and can generally be worked around by bumping the EV upward a bit. It is easier to recover some overexposed highlights than to pull details from shadows on any camera, I think.
I do agree that the boatload of great specs on the 7D II far outweigh the minor DR issue that some may see with the sensor.
Here's the people who will have complaints, legitimate or not:
1. "I wanted a flip twist LCD, I don't need all those controls on the body. I want to take bug and flower macros in live view."
Those people can and should buy a 70D.
2. People whose photographic hobby consists of measuring their cameras' specs against others on places like DXo (sensor measurements) and dpreview (overall score). They don't need a great camera, they want one with great specs to look at. And those type of 'users' DO exist.
The only possible disappointment I could understand is the lack of touch screen (fixed, not articulated) for those who have found it to be a convenient way of controlling AF point and other functions, since those do not replace the regular controls and menus anyhow. Perhaps Canon has a good reason for not including it, maybe their target market just is not that interested in it for what it would have added to the cameras cost or price.
Last edited:
LOL! How refreshing to hear of a camera of the size of the 7D / 7D II referred to as 'a more compact size' instead of 'humongous', 'bloated', 'weighs a ton', 'enormous' etc. etc. from the tiny camera booster club.
Last edited:
rwbaron
Forum Pro
I'm curious how one can "recover some overexposed highlights"? If the highlights are clipped there is no information to recover.
Bob
I said overexposed highlights, not clipped or blown highlights. There's a significant difference.
Last edited:
Jerry-astro
Forum Pro
Would you mind explaining why a flip screen would prevent Canon from employing a real joystick, rather than the admittedly inferior control on the 70D? I guess your Ferrari comparison just doesn't resonate with me since I can't see the flip screen as being just a "consumer" feature belonging strictly with the 70D and similarly positioned cameras. I can see some challenges in ergonomic design that it might introduce, but I wouldn't simply assume that a camera would have to have exactly the same control layout and features as a 70D to employ a flip screen.
I guess I have a strong allergic reaction to this notion that features like this strictly belong in lower end cameras. I'm not convinced that many or even most of the ergonomic challenges couldn't be overcome without sacrificing the usability of the camera, if Canon were to decide that this made sense. As I said elsewhere, I think much of the negative reaction feels like pure resistance to change or simply having little or no actual experience using the feature... IMHO.
I guess I have a strong allergic reaction to this notion that features like this strictly belong in lower end cameras. I'm not convinced that many or even most of the ergonomic challenges couldn't be overcome without sacrificing the usability of the camera, if Canon were to decide that this made sense. As I said elsewhere, I think much of the negative reaction feels like pure resistance to change or simply having little or no actual experience using the feature... IMHO.
Nothing? Compare rear views of the 7DII without flip/twist LCD to 70D with it. More than 'nothing' different. Not only fewer controls easily accessible but the loss of the beloved 'joystick' which Canon has wisely carried forward from the 7D. (I think the 70D with its flip/twist bears at least as much resemblance to the 700D / T5i Rebel - a great lower-level camera with a lot of bang for the buck but in the opposite direction from the 7D II.)
The people most complaining about the LCD are the ones looking for a great all-around camera. Canon already makes the 70D for them. The 7DII (as the 7D) is designed to be a class leader for action /sports /wildlife photography, not intended to take flower and bug macros at 10fps.
It's kinda like if someone went to the Ferrari owners forum online and posted 'I don't want all those gauges, I can use warning lights and I would really rather have more cup holders. I can get that in an economy car, I would think I could have it in a Ferrari!'
Canon knows who their market is for the 7D II and if you are disappointed then it is because you want (need) a different kind of camera and the 7D WAS meant for someone else. Yes, there will be a few action / sports types who would like a flip/twist LCD but probably not at the cost of giving up the joystick and extra controls, which ARE relevant to what sort of use this camera was meant for.
Canon has improved the basic specs of the 7D to address the weaknesses (especially the very slow live-view AF) and improve its strengths. I would much rather have it as it is (even with the minor issue of low ISO DR, which can easily be worked around) than to turn a Ferrari into a minivan.
7DII:
70D:
For that matter, here's a 700D / Rebel T5i:
Limburger
Veteran Member
Similar threads
- For sale
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum