6d2 is here.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18419061
Sony has come a long way, but there are still things, at least at the time this article was written, that keeps me from looking at Sony.

http://sebimagery.com …y-the-a7r2-is-not-for-you

So what can Canon bring to the table they don't already have? Just some while ideas of mine, along with a few echo'd by others:

- better DR still, more to go
- In body stabilization
- eye focus control (had it years ago with film, albeit a simplied AF system though)
- better wireless tethering (better app, and functions)
- modular dual card slots (CF, CFAST and SD are well known interfaces, so why not create a modular system, and have users "design" their own perfect dual card layout)
- full frame 4K with newest more agile codec (but would take away from 1D series too much perhaps?)
- IR mode (could they design an AA filter system where 2 filters can be swapped in-camera from AA to IR? Perhaps too much room required, but with some R&D, I am sure they could figure this out.
- Why stop there? How about 3 AA filter options? AA, no AA, IR? Or do the 5DSR trick, and have only 2 filters, a canceling AA and an IR, to get 3 options.
- USB 3.0 for pete's sake
- Convert flip screen into a removable remote monitor with small base that supplies power and BT communications
- Go farther with dual pixel to do dual ISO, like what ML did years ago with the older bodies
- Use rating button to denote which images should automatically be transmitted to connected device (much like old Eye Fi functions) instead of having to pull them from the device itself
- ISO bracketing (even though I guess we might have a form of this with one of the high ISO options on some
models)
- Focus bracketing with selectable # of frames centered around the current focus point.

Some of these ideas create accessories that could be purchased, and thus a potential additional revenue source.

Sony is starting to look really go for me but I realize I am a bit of a special case. I'm not feature driven as I like to do everything manually but IQ is important. I wish I could justify the 5DIV but it's still too pricey. I'm looking forward to seeing what the A7III brings. Sony rumors tend to be less accurate than Canon rumoring but even if 1/2 of them can be believed, it looks to be a solid replacement for the A7II.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18419061
Sony has come a long way, but there are still things, at least at the time this article was written, that keeps me from looking at Sony.

http://sebimagery.com …y-the-a7r2-is-not-for-you

The same author has edited the article because many of the problems have now been solved for him.

The main problems for me are:
- Price to switch (also add the Metabones adapter).
- User interface and camera settings. Menus are so bad I always feel lost. UI is slow and you often have to "wait for the camera". Even a 5D2 feels snappier.
- Ergonomics. Too many sharp edges and small, non-lit, buttons. No touch-screen.
- Needs a dual-slot battery charger.

I don't use flash, and didn't even remember the camera had a hot-shoe
Native lenses price and availability are not a problem, as I use my EF lenses.

Most of the above issues will probably be fixed with the A7R3.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18419061
- Focus bracketing with selectable # of frames centered around the current focus point.

This! Does Magic Lantern do this?

repete7 wrote in post #18419086
This! Does Magic Lantern do this?

Not for the 6DII though. If Canon had any sense, they would work with the ML guys and implement a lot of their features into the camera itself.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18419061
- eye focus control (had it years ago with film, albeit a simplied AF system though)

That was a different thing.
Sony's eye focus is detecting the eyes in the image.

Unrealistic. Dual slot of a single card type is ok.
However, I am conviced that there is no "pro camera" with a single card slot.

Agreed. JPG has been obsolete for more than 10 years, and at least H.264 should be used in every camera able to shoot video.

Can't. Sensor filters are a critical part of the optical path. Only a few users would ever want to attempt a replacement that could affect image quality and even damage the sensor.

Same as above.
No AA filter is ok. Fixing the rare issues in post is easy.

AEB is your friend.
Google for "isoless sensor".

Don't do in-camera what even a good PC struggles to do in post

CheshireCat wrote in post #18419085
The same author has edited the article because many of the problems have now been solved for him.

The main problems for me are:
- Price to switch (also add the Metabones adapter).
- User interface and camera settings. Menus are so bad I always feel lost. UI is slow and you often have to "wait for the camera". Even a 5D2 feels snappier.
- Ergonomics. Too many sharp edges and small, non-lit, buttons. No touch-screen.
- Needs a dual-slot battery charger.

I don't use flash, and didn't even remember the camera had a hot-shoe
Native lenses price and availability are not a problem, as I use my EF lenses.

Most of the above issues will probably be fixed with the A7R3.

The user interface issue comes with the territory of a highly customizable machine. Once you have the full leap of faith and swap out all your canon bodies, you dont deal with familiarity issues, you simply learn the system. Quite frankly, I know it like the back of my hand at this point, partially because I've been using it for 3+ years now, and partially because I dont have any other option

touch screen would be a huge welcome and it looks like all the future bodies have it.

dual charger really should come standard. REALLY love the fact that you can charge in body, however I do have a wasabi dual charger and it's extremely convenient. If I shoot an event with two bodies, no way I deplete them, simply swap both out and I'm good as new. Same thing for travel, I may have a thousand plus frames in a day and at that point I'de be on my second battery. Back at the rental, swap both out, and I'm ready for the next day. The charger is also super tiny and being USB, connects to battery packs or straight to laptop. E mount lens prices have remained strong which is good and bad.... it's bad in that it's hard to find cheap glass, and good that the glass retains strong resale, which is not thought to be a mirrorless strong point. I've been looking for the 24-70GM for a while and the prices are outrageous.

As far as A7riii, I'm thinking I'll skip, cant imagine how much better it will be compared to the rii in IQ. Simply grab the A9 for fast action.

Mirrorless fast depreciation isnt happening as fast as I thought, I would like to get an A9, not paying 4K for one, as I can easily get by with the A7ii/A7rii for people type shots.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18418967
I agree a bit with you.

Regarding the 5D4 AF, I use it over the 7D2, the AF is better, especially in waning light. Also, I don't always need to add a TC, because I am not always shooting at the extremes of my lenses' focal length maximums. This just means I shoot at a longer focal length on the 5D4 than the 7D2, and in those cases, the 5D4 wins.

Framed that way, yes, the 5D4 + chosen lens will out-AF the 7D2 with chosen lens, but I don't see things in that frame. I see a given lens available, and with that lens, variations in AF vs pixels-on-subject. The 5D4+1.4x puts very slightly more pixels on subject than the 7D2, with a much narrower set of AF points if the lens [Edit] + TC is f/8.

I see things in this frame: I have a lens. I can use the 5D4, the 5D4 with a 1.4x TC, or the 7D2. The 7D2 puts about 95% as many pixels on subject as the 5D4 with the TC, but without the global and microcontrast losses from the extra glass, and without support for AF on some of the AF points if the lens choice on the 7D2 would be f/5.6, because they would be f/8 on the 5D4 with the TC. Without the TC, the 5D4 puts less pixels-on subject, but with better AF, and more f/8 points for most lenses. Of course, when I speak of "with a TC" and "without a TC", I mean an extra 1.4x of magnification on the 5D4; not "no TC at all".

Now, yes, you can stick an 600/4 lens on the 5D4 and a 400/4 lens on the 7D2, for similar FOV and better AF from the 5D4, and more "duck photons" from the 600/4's larger aperture, which also requires (not just allows) a narrower DOF. If that is the choice, then the 5D4 combo wins, hands-down (except for fps, of course). How many of us are actually making that decision, though? The difference between the 600/4 and the 400/4 is not just magnification; there is a huge weight difference, size difference, and price difference, as well, and if I had the 600/4 as the lens I chose for that day, I'd want a higher density sensor to go with it a lot of the time, anyway. You really need about 2000mm on a FF for some bird photography, but that is physically impractical, so people crop, or just don't bother to shoot at all. As one of the local big-gear enthusiasts with a 600/4 and 1D2 used to say, "if the smaller birds are more than 30 feet away, I don't even bother to shoot them".

So, I stick to my guns by saying that unless you are also using a larger lens, shooting super-wide-angle, super-shallow DOF, or at ISO 100 in Av mode, the FF benefit over APS-C is partly illusion. And if the bigger sensor also has bigger pixels, then it has bigger microlenses that pass more light at very low f-numbers, which, generally imply shallow DOF.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18419106
That was a different thing.
Sony's eye focus is detecting the eyes in the image.

Unrealistic. Dual slot of a single card type is ok.
However, I am conviced that there is no "pro camera" with a single card slot.

Agreed. JPG has been obsolete for more than 10 years, and at least H.264 should be used in every camera able to shoot video.

Can't. Sensor filters are a critical part of the optical path. Only a few users would ever want to attempt a replacement that could affect image quality and even damage the sensor.

Same as above.
No AA filter is ok. Fixing the rare issues in post is easy.

AEB is your friend.
Google for "isoless sensor".

Don't do in-camera what even a good PC struggles to do in post

- Canon invented eye-tracked focusing, I don't mean focus on the eyes in the image.
- It isn't unrealistic to have a card slot that is modular, not even remotely difficult.
- The AA filter sits in front of the sensor, and the 5DSR has yet another filter in front of that to cancel out the AA filter. These could be designed to have 2 filters that move in front of the existing AA filter to create a 3 way filter over the sensor.
- No, I don't want AEB, I want the scene recorded in 3 different ISOs and merged. Canon has already done this partially with some of the models in one of the high ISO modes, but it needs work.
- Cameras can stick panoramas together now, it is a known software routine. Brenizer is just a multilayered "panorama". There are software libraries that do this, and the DSLR is a little computer that can run these routines.

All of these can be done. As components shrink or as processors continue to increase in performance and capability, there becomes more space and computing resource to allow for some of these features. There is nothing here that is impossible, it becomes an exercise of grading options and their perceived needs to the public vs the costs. I do that type of analysis just about every day it seems.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18419130
Framed that way, yes, the 5D4 + chosen lens will out-AF the 7D2 with chosen lens, but I don't see things in that frame. I see a given lens available, and with that lens, variations in AF vs pixels-on-subject. The 5D4+1.4x puts very slightly more pixels on subject than the 7D2, with a much narrower set of AF points if the lens

I see things in this frame: I have a lens. I can use the 5D4, the 5D4 with a 1.4x TC, or the 7D2. The 7D2 puts about 95% as many pixels on subject as the 5D4 with the TC, but without the global and microcontrast losses from the extra glass, and without support for AF on some of the AF points if the lens choice on the 7D2 would be f/5.6, because they would be f/8 on the 5D4 with the TC. Without the TC, the 5D4 puts less pixels-on subject, but with better AF, and more f/8 points for most lenses. Of course, when I speak of "with a TC" and "without a TC", I mean an extra 1.4x of magnification on the 5D4; not "no TC at all".

Now, yes, you can stick an 600/4 lens on the 5D4 and a 400/4 lens on the 7D2, for similar FOV and better AF from the 5D4, and more "duck photons" from the 600/4's larger aperture, which also requires (not just allows) a narrower DOF. If that is the choice, then the 5D4 combo wins, hands-down (except for fps, of course). How many of us are actually making that decision, though? The difference between the 600/4 and the 400/4 is not just magnification; there is a huge weight difference, size difference, and price difference, as well, and if I had the 600/4 as the lens I chose for that day, I'd want a higher density sensor to go with it a lot of the time, anyway. You really need about 2000mm on a FF for some bird photography, but that is physically impractical, so people crop, or just don't bother to shoot at all. As one of the local big-gear enthusiasts with a 600/4 and 1D2 used to say, "if the smaller birds are more than 30 feet away, I don't even bother to shoot them".

So, I stick to my guns by saying that unless you are also using a larger lens, shooting super-wide-angle, or at ISO 100 in Av mode, the FF benefit over APS-C is partly illusion. And if the bigger sensor also has bigger pixels, then it has bigger microlenses that pass more light at very low f-numbers, which, generally imply shallow DOF.

Far fetched scenarios IMO.

A more realistic scenario is what happens when you fill the frame vs what happens when you HAVE to crop. How often are you cropping for your type of photography? How often are you filling the frame? I know that if I were cropping all the time, the the crop factor *might be helpful. Shooting that style is a PITA might I add. I know in my own experience that I'll fill the frame to the fullest. If I'm too far away, I'll figure out ways to get closer/crop/make due without. If you're struggling with 600mm being too short, you've gotta consider is there a better way to do things. You can even stretch the pixel density further using m43..... at some point, all that cropping you're doing is continually hurting IQ. I shoot hummingbirds all the time, and since they're the naturally occurring variety (no bait), I've got to get close to them behind a bush or whatever. I've got to shoot in silent mode as well, or they'll fly off due to the noise. 600mm can be impractical for some action shots, as they'ed completely leave the frame, and if I have to shoot loosely framed to start with, a crop from FF will retain much better details than a similar crop from APS-C.

600mm is a ton of range and if you cant get the shot with 600, consider who you are as a photographer.

Not everybody needs those focal lengths though. When I am shooting the 7D2 and 5D4 with the 70-200, I find that with the 7D2, I am more often at the wider end, and on the 5D4 at the long end. This is a daily thing for me in the fall during sports. Even outdoor sports, with the 150-600, I rarely am shooting at 600mm with either format.

Many kinds of shoots have a confined space to work within, and you may not be at the end of your reach with a lens. Wildlife, some motorsports, and airshows are 3 such areas where yes, you will hit the limits of your telephotos, and then you have to recognize you are cropping out the FF to match the AOV of the APS-C, or you use a TC to keep your resolution and still get that reach, thus you are at a stop slower already out the gate.

I just wanted to point out that there are MANY situations where you don't need a TC, because you already have the reach built into the lenses you own to create the same AOV across the APS-C and FF. Your analysis is accurate if you are reach-limited with your lenses you have today. Sometimes you can buy a new lens, or you can decide to use a TC.

TCs only became an alternative recently with the changes in AF allowing f/8 focusing in non 1D series, before that wasn't even really an option unless you bought a 1D. You bought more length, or you cropped... We are very fortunately these days than just 6 years ago or back.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18419130
Framed that way, yes, the 5D4 + chosen lens will out-AF the 7D2 with chosen lens, but I don't see things in that frame. I see a given lens available, and with that lens, variations in AF vs pixels-on-subject. The 5D4+1.4x puts very slightly more pixels on subject than the 7D2, with a much narrower set of AF points if the lens [Edit] + TC is f/8.

I see things in this frame: I have a lens. I can use the 5D4, the 5D4 with a 1.4x TC, or the 7D2. The 7D2 puts about 95% as many pixels on subject as the 5D4 with the TC, but without the global and microcontrast losses from the extra glass, and without support for AF on some of the AF points if the lens choice on the 7D2 would be f/5.6, because they would be f/8 on the 5D4 with the TC. Without the TC, the 5D4 puts less pixels-on subject, but with better AF, and more f/8 points for most lenses. Of course, when I speak of "with a TC" and "without a TC", I mean an extra 1.4x of magnification on the 5D4; not "no TC at all".

Now, yes, you can stick an 600/4 lens on the 5D4 and a 400/4 lens on the 7D2, for similar FOV and better AF from the 5D4, and more "duck photons" from the 600/4's larger aperture, which also requires (not just allows) a narrower DOF. If that is the choice, then the 5D4 combo wins, hands-down (except for fps, of course). How many of us are actually making that decision, though? The difference between the 600/4 and the 400/4 is not just magnification; there is a huge weight difference, size difference, and price difference, as well, and if I had the 600/4 as the lens I chose for that day, I'd want a higher density sensor to go with it a lot of the time, anyway. You really need about 2000mm on a FF for some bird photography, but that is physically impractical, so people crop, or just don't bother to shoot at all. As one of the local big-gear enthusiasts with a 600/4 and 1D2 used to say, "if the smaller birds are more than 30 feet away, I don't even bother to shoot them".

So, I stick to my guns by saying that unless you are also using a larger lens, shooting super-wide-angle, super-shallow DOF, or at ISO 100 in Av mode, the FF benefit over APS-C is partly illusion. And if the bigger sensor also has bigger pixels, then it has bigger microlenses that pass more light at very low f-numbers, which, generally imply shallow DOF.

I'm the landscape guy that almost never shoots wildlife or the long focal lengths. I agree with you however, assuming the same quality of pixels I would choose a crop sensor over a FF for those type subjects. In my opinion the difference in cost of the glass to achieve the same view alone would be worth it to me.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18419150
- Canon invented eye-tracked focusing, I don't mean focus on the eyes in the image.

I actually have an EOS 3 with the eye-controlled focus. I don't think that technology was where it needed to be at the time, but I'm sure it could be done far better today. It wasn't terrible then, it worked. "Training" it was a little hit or miss though. To work well you had to have your eye on the viewfinder the same way each time. I'd love to see it come back.

gjl711 wrote in post #18419037
Though the DR issue is a deal killer for me, there are other shortcomings as well that may be important to others. Lack of 4K makes this camera look old when compared to others, shutter limited to 1/4000, no built in flash put them together and this body just looks old.

Same here. I was willing to live with the rest of the crippled features because I thought I was going to get a great sensor. If it wasn't a CANON camera everyone would wonder what they were smoking charging $2k for it.

ma11rats wrote in post #18418833
Holy crap there's already a freaking ton of youtube videos on this body. So many with DR somewhere in the title and by people with less than 500 subs. Seriously a different ball game in terms of sheer number of 'reviewers' for this 6d2 vs the 6d 4-5 years ago.

Time will tell if it'll be the seller they want it to be. Will social media be a reason it doesn't perform as well, will it be a declining market? Does Canon drop the price? Does it surprise us all and sell like hot cakes?

I really wanted this to be a great camera and the specs let me down. My next upgrade will be the FUji XT2.. 4K and dual slots.. Not a full frame but I can live with that

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18419150
- It isn't unrealistic to have a card slot that is modular, not even remotely difficult.

It is unrealistic to think that a company would compromise a camera design (especially compactness) to allow for multiple different card interfaces.
I don't care what card standard my next camera will use. Just maximize compactness and speed. Memory is dirt cheap compared to the cost of a good camera.

Sure. And I think it is nonsense. In any case, making sensors filters user-replaceable is tricky. Let alone the fact that only a handful of users would want to replace sensor filters.