If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
JPEG? Means nothing.
android wrote:
In article , (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: android wrote: In article , sid wrote: android wrote: In article , sid wrote: There are raw files here if you are interested http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...non-7d-mark-ii A7. HTM Do you have a raw converter for the 7d2s cr2s? yes, http://rawtherapee.com/blog/features The last revision of RT was 11/9. The 7d2 was not released then... Anything based on DCRAW will convert the Canon 7D2 CR2 files. I didn't check to see exactly, but the usual thing is that DCRAW only checks the manufacturers name and the model for the specific number of characters. Hence a "7D" is what it will see, even if what is there is "7Dxx no such camera". As long as the parameters are the same as the previous model, the resulting conversion is just fine. Often there are small problems to start with due to small differences. In this case at least there don't seem to be any, as the above CR2 file looks exactly as one would expect. I tried both DCRAW 9.22 (July 3, 2014) and the current source code release of UFRAW. There is no "7D mark II" in dcraw.c. The 7d2 do not have same sensor as the 7d. I guess that you're a wizard. Anyways, that would be an ad hock solultion and not a calibrated conversion. There need not be a "7D mark II" in dcraw.c, as it only has to find "Canon EOS 7D" to process the image using the algorithm identified with that label. The sensors may well be different, but the algorithm works the same with either of them. And it does produce a very appropriate conversion. I'd note that *every* raw conversion is an "ad hock solution", almost by definition! Will it be slightly different than what will be produced a few weeks from now when Coffin adds the new model... of course. But not enough different that you'll be able visually detect it. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
JPEG? Means nothing.
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Will it be slightly different than what will be produced a few weeks from now when Coffin adds the new model... of course. But not enough different that you'll be able visually detect it. That's good to know! -- teleportation kills http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
JPEG? Means nothing.
In article , android
wrote: In article , (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Will it be slightly different than what will be produced a few weeks from now when Coffin adds the new model... of course. But not enough different that you'll be able visually detect it. That's good to know! https://www.dropbox.com/s/2puu9zm3j8...le%20140924.ti ff?dl=0 ;-p -- teleportation kills http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400
In article , Whisky-dave wrote:
Sandman: Because I wrote this: Sandman 7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400 09/21/2014 "I've been talking about the Mark II the entire time. I just think Canon's naming scheme is stupid. It's the new version of the 7D." Whisky-dave: and because you think it's stupid you ignored it. Sandman: Indeed. Whisky-dave: Is that a yes then ? Sandman: Do you need me to help you define the word "indeed"? Indeed. No worries, I know English is hard for you: indeed adverb used to emphasize a statement or response confirming something already suggested Sandman: If you're still confused or think I'm unclear, feel free to - you know - ask. Whisky-dave: I did I asked for the differences between the 7D and the 7D Sandman: And I gave you an answer. Whisky-dave: No you didn't, you said the 7D trounced the x7100 Sandman: Not as an answer to that question, no. You are confused. So you deny you said the above. I deny that I said it as an answer to the question, contrary to your incorrect claim, yes. Whisky-dave: Only you would blame your own typo (or was it delibrate) on someone elses reading ability. Sandman: No typo, and no blame has occured. Whisky-dave: So you delibrately typed 7D you didn't miss the 2 or mk II Sandman: That should be obvious by now. Whisky-dave: Wasn;t at the time. Sandman: But is obvious now. What that you can't type wothout errors ..... Have you seen what you yourself is typing? The above "sentence" is hilariously ironic. and that peole must reliase they are errors. If "peole" are confused, all they need to do is ask. As it is - in this thread there has only been two trolls that have taken objection to it. I won't lose any sleep over that. Sandman: I've given you enough information to reach that conclusion yourself. Whisky-dave: Now you've admited leaving the information out because you thought the name was stupid, and I think the name D7100 is stupid. Sandman: Good for you! You are free to call the D7100 whatever you like, Dave. I won't spend four or five posts talking about it, I promise. So how would the 7D mk II compare with the dave666. Poorly. Sandman: Good for you. I haven't talked about both, only about one of them, in a thread about only one of them. Whisky-dave: Which one was that then ? Sandman: The one the thread is about. What the one in the thread refered to as the 7D ? or the one in the subject refered to as 7D2 ? If you go back to when the thread started, I'm sure you'll be able to figure it out. To me these are two differnt cameras . Good for you! Sandman: Android: "Here's a screen capture of the 7D2 vs the D7100 at ISO 6400..." Me: "Yeah, like I said - the 7D is trounced by the D7100" Whisky-dave: so how does the 7D and the 7D compare ? Sandman: In many ways, dpreview has a compare-function you can use. Whisky-dave: Yes and they are identical. Sandman: Then you're using it incorrectly. Whisky-dave: No they are both the same. Sandman: You are incorrect. There are many differences. such as what ? Use the dpreview side-by-side comparison function to find out. I can't be expected to do all the work for you. Sandman: The new 7D has higher resolution, faster processor, better ISO performance, more focus points, better LCD, higher frame rate and dual memory card slots. You would know this if you followed my advice and looked it up. I did and it's the same in your post there is NO differnce. BECAUSE as you say when you type 7D in the thread you actually mean the 7D2. So when I tried comparing the 7D with the 7D I got exactly the same specs. I can't be held accountable for your incompetence in using a side by side comparison function, Dave. Remmeber in your world when you type 7D in a thread it's obvious that you mean to 7D mk II because that's in the subject header. So I selected the 7D mk ii and compared it to the 7D mk ii and suprise suprise both specs are the same., I am not the one that asked the question, remember? You are the one that was curious about what differences there were between two cameras. If you meant that you were curious about what difference there was between the same camera, well then you're a complete idiot. Sandman: Drunk Dave: "Eh, why is he talking about a different camera? I don't understand!" Whisky-dave: Why are you talking about the 7D and why talk So what relivance does the trounching of the 7D by the D7100 have that's what I couldn;t work out. Sandman: Because the D7100 is better *and* cheaper. Pretty relevant. Better than what the 7D ? or the 7D mk ii it wasn't clear from the line. "Me: "Yeah, like I said - the 7D is trounced by the D7100" Luckily, I cleared that up in a subsequent post, then. Right? Again, if you're confused (as you're likely to be), just ask. If you think I'm being unclear, I'll be happy to clear things up for you when needed. Now you're up to six posts talking about something I said. That's pretty impressive. How many more posts will you make on a subject I cleared up two days ago? -- Sandman[.net] |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
JPEG? Means nothing.
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: As long as the parameters are the same as the previous model, the resulting conversion is just fine. Often there are small problems to start with due to small differences. In this case at least there don't seem to be any, as the above CR2 file looks exactly as one would expect. I tried both DCRAW 9.22 (July 3, 2014) and the current source code release of UFRAW. There is no "7D mark II" in dcraw.c. The 7d2 do not have same sensor as the 7d. I guess that you're a wizard. Anyways, that would be an ad hock solultion and not a calibrated conversion. There need not be a "7D mark II" in dcraw.c, as it only has to find "Canon EOS 7D" to process the image using the algorithm identified with that label. that's a bug. "Canon EOS 7D" != "7D mark II" (or whatever the exact labels are). The sensors may well be different, but the algorithm works the same with either of them. And it does produce a very appropriate conversion. works and works well are not the same. the arrangement of the pixels might differ, the chromaticities likely differ and certainly the amount of noise reduction, sharpening etc. needed will be different. I'd note that *every* raw conversion is an "ad hock solution", almost by definition! that's a stretch. Will it be slightly different than what will be produced a few weeks from now when Coffin adds the new model... of course. But not enough different that you'll be able visually detect it. maybe you won't, but other people will, especially if there are significant changes to the sensor. not everyone is satisfied with substandard results. if it wasn't noticeable then there would be no point in updating raw converters for new cameras. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
JPEG? Means nothing.
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: As long as the parameters are the same as the previous model, the resulting conversion is just fine. Often there are small problems to start with due to small differences. In this case at least there don't seem to be any, as the above CR2 file looks exactly as one would expect. I tried both DCRAW 9.22 (July 3, 2014) and the current source code release of UFRAW. There is no "7D mark II" in dcraw.c. The 7d2 do not have same sensor as the 7d. I guess that you're a wizard. Anyways, that would be an ad hock solultion and not a calibrated conversion. There need not be a "7D mark II" in dcraw.c, as it only has to find "Canon EOS 7D" to process the image using the algorithm identified with that label. that's a bug. "Canon EOS 7D" != "7D mark II" (or whatever the exact labels are). In the opinion of who? You! Good for a laugh or two... The sensors may well be different, but the algorithm works the same with either of them. And it does produce a very appropriate conversion. works and works well are not the same. the arrangement of the pixels might differ, the chromaticities likely differ and certainly the amount of noise reduction, sharpening etc. needed will be different. None of that is true. I'd note that *every* raw conversion is an "ad hock solution", almost by definition! that's a stretch. That is a fact. Will it be slightly different than what will be produced a few weeks from now when Coffin adds the new model... of course. But not enough different that you'll be able visually detect it. maybe you won't, but other people will, especially if there are significant changes to the sensor. The point is that in this particular case there are not. not everyone is satisfied with substandard results. Only you are. Others can tell when results are not substandard. if it wasn't noticeable then there would be no point in updating raw converters for new cameras. Talk about a stupid comment. You don't seem to have understood the difference between what applies to this one specific case and what applies in general. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400
In article , Whisky-dave wrote:
Whisky-dave: I did and it's the same in your post there is NO differnce. BECAUSE as you say when you type 7D in the thread you actually mean the 7D2. So when I tried comparing the 7D with the 7D I got exactly the same specs. Sandman: I can't be held accountable for your incompetence in using a side by side comparison function, Dave. It is yuor incompetence ... You have stated that the 7D and the 7D are differnt cameras when they aren't (yuo can tell by the fact that canon have named bothy the canon 7D. So Canon named "both" 7D but you're still talking about only one camera? So which ones (plural) were you in reference to when you used the word "both" above? You seem to be confusing yourself by now. If they were differnt they wouldn't name them the same woul;d they. "they", as in plural. You are talking about two different cameras, then? When you compare two cameras that have the same ID then the chances are the specs from those two cameras will be pretty bloody close if they aren't they quality control isn't working. Not sure who has been comparing two cameras with the same "ID". Sandman: I am not the one that asked the question, remember? you said the 7D was trounced by the D700. Incorrect. You need to go back and see what I said, and stop making things up as you go along. But said nothing about teh new 7D mk ii ecept that yuo didn;t like it and for that reason in this thread yuo are calling the 7D mk ii 7D. I never said I don't like the new 7D, another pure invention on your part. Why have you decided to use the same ID for both cameras in this thread I haven't used the same "ID" for both cameras in this thread, Dave. I have only ever talked about one single Canon model. Sandman: You are the one that was curious about what differences there were between two cameras. If you meant that you were curious about what difference there was between the same camera, well then you're a complete idiot. I was trying to find out how you distiguished between the 7D and the 7D mk mii when you state that in this theard you will refer to the 7D as the 7D and also refer to the 7D mk ii as the 7D. Please quote me saying that I "will" refer to the old 7D as the 7D. Again you make stuff up. How could I tell which one trounced the N7100 when you tell me the 7D trounced the D7100 I haven't told YOU that at all, Dave. I responded to a post from Android, and told him how the camera he posted a thread about was trounced by the D7100. I'm expected to know you actually meant the 7D mk ii. I don't expect you to know anything, period. I also expect you to keep posting about such irrelevant matters as what I call something for days on end. Because in the subject header is "7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400" There you go. And then again your use of the word trounced is a little odd when some of the specs are quite differnt, and the subject line states you are testing at 6400 nom mention of any other specs. Perhaps if you weren't illiterate, you would be able to deduce from that reply and my other posts on the subject what I was in reference to. I replied to Android, and we've talked about the 7D vs. the D750 and the D7100 before. No need to repeat the discussion again just because illiterate Dave may join it. So what relivance does the trounching of the 7D by the D7100 have that's what I couldn;t work out. Sandman: Because the D7100 is better *and* cheaper. Pretty relevant. Whisky-dave: Better than what the 7D ? or the 7D mk ii it wasn't clear from the line. "Me: "Yeah, like I said - the 7D is trounced by the D7100" Sandman: Luckily, I cleared that up in a subsequent post, then. Right? Again, wrong how did you clear it up ? I've already quoted it twice. Third time's the charm, right? Sandman 7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400 09/21/2014 "It's all you've got, troll. I've been talking about the Mark II the entire time. I just think Canon's naming scheme is stupid. It's the new version of the 7D. Focus on irrelevant things instead of staying focused on facts, Android." Note that this was four (4) days ago, and here you are - still arguing about it. Go figure. Sandman: if you're confused (as you're likely to be), just ask. If you think I'm being unclear, I'll be happy to clear things up for you when needed. I'm confused because yuo stated that everytimne in this thread when you refer type 7D you are refering to teh 7D mk II that's fine by me, but then you go on to say ....what? Sandman: Now you're up to six posts talking about something I said. That's pretty impressive. How many more posts will you make on a subject I cleared up two days ago? All you needed to do was explain that while teh subject header said "7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400" and the text body said the 7D trounced the N7100. I can't parse the above to a proper sentence. But is that just at 6400 or every aspect of the camera. That was clear from my earlier posts. See and You're welcome. -- Sandman[.net] |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400
In article , Whisky-dave wrote:
Whisky-dave: I did and it's the same in your post there is NO differnce. BECAUSE as you say when you type 7D in the thread you actually mean the 7D2. So when I tried comparing the 7D with the 7D I got exactly the same specs. Sandman: I can't be held accountable for your incompetence in using a side by side comparison function, Dave. Whisky-dave: It is yuor incompetence ... You have stated that the 7D and the 7D are differnt cameras when they aren't (yuo can tell by the fact that canon have named bothy the canon 7D. Sandman: So Canon named "both" 7D but you're still talking about only one camera? Not in my world but in this thread you are calling both cameras the 7D. This is still an incorrect claim, I have not called two seperate cameras 7D. I have only talked about one Canon camera. So I can't actually terll teh differnce when you say the 7D trounced the N7100 So? Whether or not you can "terll teh differnce" or not is of no importance to me. I could NOT tell whether or not you were refering to the 7D (old) or the 7D.(new) Luckily, I cleared that up four (4!) days ago, so one have to wonder why you're still here posting about it to this day? Seven posts about a confusion I cleared up well before your first post. Amazing! Sandman: So which ones (plural) were you in reference to when you used the word "both" above? You seem to be confusing yourself by now. Your confusing me by refusing to correctly identify the cameras. You're the one that said "both", not me. And I would expect that everything that everyone ever says confuses you a lot, why would this be any different? Why can't you just say whether you're refering to the 7D (old) or the 7D (new) I have, four days ago. Whisky-dave: If they were differnt they wouldn't name them the same would they. Sandman: "they", as in plural. You are talking about two different cameras, then? I thought the 7D and teh 7D mk ii were two differnt cameras. but I wasn't aware that a 7D camera and a 7D camera were differnt. That's cute. Why not answer the question - were you or were you not talking about two different cameras? You said "both" and "they", so what were you in reference to? Whisky-dave: When you compare two cameras that have the same ID then the chances they aren't they quality control isn't working. Sandman: Not sure who has been comparing two cameras with the same "ID". Because you said it's obvious that wheh in the subject you refer to the 7D2 ibnn the subject lione and you them type 7D is a nice flavoured camera then it's obvious that you're actually refering to the 7D2. The above paragraph reached the threshold for number of spelling errors I can be bothered to decode. Sandman: I am not the one that asked the question, remember? Whisky-dave: you said the 7D was trounced by the D700. Sandman: Incorrect. You need to go back and see what I said, and stop making things up as you go along. This is what you said, or typed. -Sandman Sep 21 Sandman: http://www.imaging-resource.com has got a "Beta" of the 7D2 and posted jpegs of their test targets in their camera "comperometer". Here's a screen capture of the 7D2 vs the D7100 at ISO 6400... The Canon's on the left: http://tinyurl.com/mhpwv5m I'm a RAW kind of guy but it's a preview. "Half frame" fanatics should be ecstatic! "Yeah, like I said - the 7D is trounced by the D7100, and you wanted to compare it to the D750, where it would be obliterated. ISO6400 is Max ISO for the D7100 and the 7D goes one step further, yet at 6400 the 7D doesn't really look that much better. A pity, why can't Canon handle image noise as good as Nikon? " Shouldn't you be quoting me saying what you attributed to me above, Dave? Why quote this irrelevant quote where I am *not* saying what you just claimed I said. rest sniped. Do us all a favor and just step out of this thread while you're behind. You're up to seven posts talking about a confusion you had due to me being unclear, something I cleared up four days ago, well before your first post in this thread. Amazing the lengths you will go just to continue trolling. -- Sandman[.net] |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400
"Whisky-dave" wrote in message
... On Thursday, 25 September 2014 15:28:44 UTC+1, Sandman wrote: Sandman Sep 21 In article , android wrote: 1 http://www.imaging-resource.com has got a "Beta" of the 7D2 and 2 posted jpegs of their test targets in their camera "comperometer". 3 Here's a screen capture of the 7D2 vs the D7100 at ISO 6400... The 4 Canon's on the left: http://tinyurl.com/mhpwv5m I'm a RAW kind of 5 guy but it's a preview. "Half frame" fanatics should be ecstatic! 6 7 Yeah, like I said - the 7D is trounced by the D7100, and you wanted to 8 compare it to the D750, where it would be obliterated. 9 10 ISO6400 is Max ISO for the D7100 and the 7D goes one step further, yet at 11 6400 the 7D doesn't really look that much better. A pity, why can't Canon 12 handle image noise as good as Nikon? -- Sandman[.net] So in the first post what did you actual say and what did you mean, this is the text I found and copied. I've added numbers for teh lines to make it easy for you. Did you type any of teh above lines. Y/N if Yes which ones. Not in my world but in this thread you are calling both cameras the 7D. This is still an incorrect claim, I have not called two seperate cameras 7D. I have only talked about one Canon camera. Then which canon camera ? Andriod posted a link to test images from teh NEW 7D mk ii BETA. What camera are you talking about ? I could NOT tell whether or not you were refering to the 7D (old) or the 7D.(new) Luckily, I cleared that up four (4!) days ago, No you haven't, or you'd have re-posted that quote. Your confusing me by refusing to correctly identify the cameras. Why can't you just say whether you're refering to the 7D (old) or the 7D (new) I have, four days ago. But use the name 7D to identify both cameras is that it. I thought the 7D and teh 7D mk ii were two differnt cameras. but I wasn't aware that a 7D camera and a 7D camera were differnt. That's cute. Why not answer the question - were you or were you not talking about two different cameras? You said "both" and "they", so what were you in reference to? The 7D trounching the D7100 at 6400 and how that said anything about the 7D mk ii performance. Of course the original link was a side by side image of apparently the 7D mk ii BETA and the D7100 at 6400. In the samples, the 7D MK II clearly performs better at ISO 6400 than the D7100, less noise and more detail. So how does that D710 "trounce" the 7D MK II? Not that it matters, fanboys and their brand wars are a waste of time anyway. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon new release D7100 | Rob | Digital Photography | 159 | March 15th 13 11:09 AM |
6400 on the D3? How about 12,800 on a little P&S? | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | January 24th 08 08:29 PM |