6d2 is here.

davesrose wrote in post #18421491
I've got a nice SACD player, and with the proper equipment and native SACDs, can hear the difference in soundstage and harmonics. I think most the population would hear differences if they were presented with it. But mp3 gained market share because of the convenience and copying abilities. At least now with storage always getting bigger, people transfer higher bit rate mp3s or FLAC audio formats. For high quality speakers, there's always been some issues of marketing: look how the lay public views Bose as a high end speaker product (no highs, no lows, must be Bose); or flabby bass headphones Beats Audio.

Exactly. Its all about convenience. My adult son is a professional musician and truly appreciates the high quality presentation of my $30K+ sound system, (which by today's standards is inexpensive). But he still does most of his listening through earbuds on his iPod. Its all about mobile convenience. We also live in a world where few people hear live music more then on rare occasions, and even then it mostly amplified. Most people are simply not educated and sophisticated listeners and don't care, For pretty much the same reasons, I believe the 6D Mark II will ultimately sell well because it will more than meet the needs, expectations, and skills of most people who will buy it.

mwsilver wrote in post #18421530
Sadly, I agree with you.

Well, yes, it is sad in some respects. But it's only shining the light on something that was always there before. A whole lot of people who like to take photographs are not really all that bothered about the quality of the images that they make. They mainly just want the 'snap'.

That's fine ... and for people in that camp it makes a whole lot more sense to rely on a smartphone. And for the however many that remain that are really interested in the quality of the photographs that they take, the smartphone is still a very useful stand-by when it's all they have to hand.

I don't myself feel all that sad to find I am part of a smaller group than perhaps it seemed ... before the smartphone came along.

DaviSto wrote in post #18421545
Well, yes, it is sad in some respects. But it's only shining the light on something that was always there before. A whole lot of people who like to take photographs are not really all that bothered about the quality of the images that they make. They mainly just want the 'snap'.

That's fine ... and for people in that camp it makes a whole lot more sense to rely on a smartphone. And for the however many that remain that are really interested in the quality of the photographs that they take, the smartphone is still a very useful stand-by when it's all they have to hand.

I don't myself feel all that sad to find I am part of a smaller group than perhaps it seemed ... before the smartphone came along.

Lots of folks with money in their pockets buy high quality cameras because they think they're getting the best and that their pictures will look more professional simply because of the camera. I'm sure we all know or have met folks like that who have no clue about photography but think a great camera will magically make them a photographer.

At least there is a segment of the population that looks for a nice home theater system: video technologies are actually driving higher resolution, 10bit color depths, and lossless audio. I noticed streaming services now have Dolby Digital plus, and the best audio on blu-ray are music concerts (that are recorded in at least high definition PCM, and are 96khz on the BD). The cost of authoring in high bit rate PCM is also going down. I'm more eccentric in that I have the high end system for my home discernment, a nice hi-end headphone system for jamming at work, and use earbuds with my iPhone when working out. Still photos though, are going the opposite direction. Each year, more photos are being taken then during the whole history of photography: yet most all those photos are taken on cell phones and shared on screens that are 10" or smaller.

When I asked where'd we go with the topic after so much discussion on the DR issue, who knew it'd turn into a VHS/Betamax CD/MP3 thread?

Maybe time to get back on topic?

davesrose wrote in post #18421560
At least there is a segment of the population that looks for a nice home theater system: video technologies are actually driving higher resolution, 10bit color depths, and lossless audio. I noticed streaming services now have Dolby Digital plus, and the best audio on blu-ray are music concerts (that are recorded in at least high definition PCM, and are 96khz on the BD). The cost of authoring in high bit rate PCM is also going down. I'm more eccentric in that I have the high end system for my home discernment, a nice hi-end headphone system for jamming at work, and use earbuds with my iPhone when working out. Still photos though, are going the opposite direction. Each year, more photos are being taken then during the whole history of photography: yet most all those photos are taken on cell phones and shared on screens that are 10" or smaller.

Yes ... but it doesn't really matter.

I'm no longer all that interested in high end audio because my ears are just not good enough to distinguish the difference. I actually still do get pretty much the same pleasure of 'hearing' the finer details in music as I always did ... but it doesn't really matter beyond a point what audio system I'm listening to, it's just my brain filling in the gaps. And for a lot of what we listen to that is amplified and distorted to bits, I'm not sure how much it matters, anyway, no matter how good your hearing.

But if you can make out the differences and are listening to music where it matters and get pleasure from it, you have only one life on this planet (I think) and can spend your money only once over ... so good luck!

When it comes to photography, the increasing billions of poor snaps that are taken every day do not detract at all from the small number of very fine images that a relatively minute proportion of the world's population enjoy looking at and discussing.

Numbers are not important.

ma11rats wrote in post #18421563
When I asked where'd we go with the topic after so much discussion on the DR issue, who knew it'd turn into a VHS/Betamax CD/MP3 thread?

Maybe time to get back on topic?

Once enough people are sufficiently bored with the original topic, all hope is lost ... it will go wherever it will go and nobody will be able to drag it back.

I'm not sure we are quite 'there' yet. I'll be enormously happy when we actually are, though.

DaviSto wrote in post #18421576
Numbers are not important.

Well the discussion was about numbers: numbers of people turning to VHS instead of Beta, numbers of people going to BD instead of HD-DVD, numbers of people going to mp3s and earbuds instead of hi-end audio, and also numbers of people using the limited camera abilities of the cell phone. It's all relevant about the lay public not seeing the need to invest (through money and/or learning) over a higher quality product/format.

As for getting back on track with the thread topic. Well the 6D2 is out, and there's the major complaint of limited DR. Does that cover it?

davesrose wrote in post #18421592
Well the discussion was about numbers: numbers of people turning to VHS instead of Beta, numbers of people going to BD instead of HD-DVD, numbers of people going to mp3s and earbuds instead of hi-end audio, and also numbers of people using the limited camera abilities of the cell phone. It's all relevant about the lay public not seeing the need to invest (through money and/or learning) over a higher quality product/format.

As for getting back on track with the thread topic. Well the 6D2 is out, and there's the major complaint of limited DR. Does that cover it?

OK ... but I don't think the numbers are the important thing. I think quality matters more.

and

OK ... but we have been chewing on this bone for a very, very long time. At some point we will move on. I'm just saying that I hope it is soon. But I know I'm not going to change anything very much as long as there enough others keen to keep on gnawing at it.

DaviSto wrote in post #18421601
OK ... but I don't think the numbers are the important thing. I think quality matters more.

I also appreciate quality: in both photography and audio presentation...there seemed to be a double standard you were applying with audio quality vs photo quality. I find a well mixed album with a top notch performer/composer can be just as elating as a well photographed photo. Most the public might also have similar reactions if they had the ability to do so, but convenience wins out (now with physical stores, there's no longer listening rooms for speakers or high end DSLRs to first try out).

As for the 6D2 and getting past DR, forums always like to keep beating the dead horse

davesrose wrote in post #18421613
I also appreciate quality: in both photography and audio presentation...there seemed to be a double standard you were applying with audio quality vs photo quality. I find a well mixed album with a top notch performer/composer can be just as elating as a well photographed photo. Most the public might also have similar reactions if they had the ability to do so, but convenience wins out (now with physical stores, there's no longer listening rooms for speakers or high end DSLRs to first try out).

As for the 6D2 and getting past DR, forums always like to keep beating the dead horse

There's no double standard. Read my post again ... What I said was that my ears are wrecked. Beyond a few hundred dollars spent on an audio system, the next five, ten, twenty or thirty thousand do not make any difference to me. I suppose that this is about numbers but only numbers of dollars. Fortunately, I still enjoy fine music because my brain adds false fidelity ... but a better audio system will not make any difference beyond a point.

When it comes to photography, numbers don't matter in a different way. I just don't care how relatively small the number of people who share my passion for it.

(And it doesn't matter either that my own images include only the quite occasional lucky shot that hits the spot because I seem to be getting a little bit luckier day-by-day as time passes by.)

ma11rats wrote in post #18421563
When I asked where'd we go with the topic after so much discussion on the DR issue, who knew it'd turn into a VHS/Betamax CD/MP3 thread?

Maybe time to get back on topic?

Right. How about suggesting me a non-Canon full frame alternative for the 6DII for around the same price, or less?

I would go used a7r2 with an adapter or look into the nikon d750

It seemed like you weren't just referring to your hearing, but the lay public as well in that post. Specifically, this sentence...which seemed to imply that hi-fi audio is snake oil:

Anyways, we're agreeing more then disagreeing: no matter popular trends, there will always be some niche of us that appreciate quality in any given discipline.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18421621
Right. How about suggesting me a non-Canon full frame alternative for the 6DII for around the same price, or less?

I think you know already that you are unlikely to get reliable advice asking that sort of question on an internet forum. You will get good sensible, honest, independent advice in amongst all the dross but you won't be able to tell which is what. Half of what you find on the internet is an approximation to what is possibly true. You just don't know which half.

The cameras that are candidates are reasonably clear. You should try to find a way to spend a reasonable amount of time using them to shoot what you most like to shoot. Then, make up your own mind and go your own way.