7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400

In article , PAS wrote:

In the samples, the 7D MK II clearly performs better at ISO 6400
than the D7100, less noise and more detail.

While the samples are pretty unimportant in themselves (they're jpegs, not
raw) everyone already knows that the 7D has better ISO performance than the
D7100, plus higher frame rate. But the D7100 trounces it in every other
aspect, and since the ISO performance isn't $500 better in the 7D, the
D7100 is a clear winner.

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.

Nothing to do with brands.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

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?

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.

Sure did. What I didn't type is the claim you've attributed to me.

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 ?

The one the thread is about, which I made clear five (5) days ago.

Andriod posted a link to test images from teh NEW 7D mk ii BETA.

What camera are you talking about ?

The one the thread is 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.

I have reposted it three times for you. Here's a fourth time:

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."

Fourth time's the charm, ey? Will it sink in?

That was five (5!!) days ago. And you're now nine (9!!!) posts in talking
about this in spite of me already having explained myself. For how much
longer will you continue this song and dance, troll boy?

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 have not identified both cameras. I have only ever talked about one Canon
camera in this thread.

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

When did you make this claim, Dave? No one else in the thread has claimed
that the 7D "trounched" the D7100 at "6400".

Now you're nine (9!!!) posts in talking about a confusion I cleared up five
(5!!) days ago. It's retty amazing how fiercly you cling to your
confusions.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

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.

Sandman:
Sure did. What I didn't type is the claim you've attributed to me.

Which claim is that then.

The one you made in an earlier post, which you later snipped out. Keep trac
of your own claims, Dave. Go back and read it. It was incorrect, and you
have yet to admit to it being incorrect, which makes you a liar.

Whisky-dave:
Then which canon camera ?

Sandman:
The one the thread is about, which I made clear five (5) days ago.

Which camera is that then.

How can you not know that?

Why is it you're finding it so hard to answer simple questions.

Why is it so hard for you to understand simple answers?

Whisky-dave:
Andriod posted a link to test images from teh NEW 7D mk ii BETA.

What camera are you talking about ?

Sandman:
The one the thread is about.

Typical you don't even kbnow which cameras are being discussed no
suprise there,

I know exactly which cameras that were being discussed, Dave. You're the
one that has spent ten (10!!) posts expressing how confused you are. I am
not confused at all.

if fact you don;t even knoiw which thread.

Another incorrect claim.

Ten posts, Dave! Ten posts about something I cleared up five days ago! New
record for you?


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

PAS:
In the samples, the 7D MK II clearly performs better at ISO 6400
than the D7100, less noise and more detail.

Sandman:
While the samples are pretty unimportant in themselves (they're
jpegs, not raw) everyone already knows that the 7D has better ISO
performance

everyones esle seems to know that they are testing the 7D mark II
or 7D2 depending on how you write it, so why are you going on about
the 7D ?

I've already answered this question.

Sandman:
D7100, plus higher frame rate. But the D7100 trounces it in every
other aspect, and since the ISO performance isn't $500 better in
the 7D, the D7100 is a clear winner.

You still don't even know what cameras have been tested do you.

As opposed to you, I know exactly what cameras that were tested. Again,
you're the confused one, not me.

PAS:
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.

Sandman:
Nothing to do with brands.

So in what way does the D7100 "trounce" the 7D or is it the 7D mk
ii what camera are YOU talking about .

Read my earlier post on the subject, which I've already quoted to you once
before.

You can;t even anser a simple question like that. It's now 5 days
and you still don;t know which camera your refering to.

Incorrect claim from Dave. I know exactly what camera I am referring to.

Why can't you state this rather simple fact ?

I have, many times. I've even quote myself stating this simple fact no less
than four (4!) times to you, but you have only snipped the quotes away and
pretended that I haven't.

I stated this five days ago, yet here you are, as confused as always.

I am refering to the camera " " insert camera name between
the quotes.

"the one the thread is about"

You're welcome.


--
Sandman[.net]

android wrote:

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

Apparently it's also possible to get the correct version of Canons own
software from their website. Results are very similar.

--
sid

On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 03:53:54 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 26 September 2014 07:47:29 UTC+1, Sandman wrote:
In article , PAS wrote:



In the samples, the 7D MK II clearly performs better at ISO 6400
than the D7100, less noise and more detail.



While the samples are pretty unimportant in themselves (they're jpegs, not
raw) everyone already knows that the 7D has better ISO performance

everyones esle seems to know that they are testing the 7D mark II or 7D2 depending on how you write it, so why are you going on about the 7D ?

than the
D7100, plus higher frame rate. But the D7100 trounces it in every other
aspect, and since the ISO performance isn't $500 better in the 7D, the
D7100 is a clear winner.

You still don't even know what cameras have been tested do you.


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.



Nothing to do with brands.

So in what way does the D7100 "trounce" the 7D or is it the 7D mk ii
what camera are YOU talking about .

You can;t even anser a simple question like that. It's now 5 days and you still don;t know which camera your refering to.

Why can't you state this rather simple fact ?

This is one of his standard debating tricks. He will lead you on and
on and never quite give you a complete answer. After about five cycles
of never quite giving you a single coherent statement, you are at
increasing risk of Jonas asking you for a link to "Where did I say
that?". Actually, he never did "say that". "that" is the subject he
has been hedging around and never quite said.

I am refering to the camera " "
insert camera name between the quotes.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

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.

I agree.

"Canon EOS 7D" != "7D mark II" (or whatever the exact labels are).

In the opinion of who? You! Good for a laugh or two...

As said: The search should only map a specific camera and not a
previous, in this case five year older model.

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.

The screen shoot I've uploaded from Darktable, another dcraw based
converter suggest heavily that your theory doesn't work in this case.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2puu9zm3j8...le%20140924.ti
ff?dl=0
http://tinyurl.com/kfhdufc

I'd note
that *every* raw conversion is an "ad hock solution",
almost by definition!

that's a stretch.

That is a fact.

I hate to say this: You obviously don't know what ad hock is. Don't kill
yourself because of that. Some people live happily in the state of
ignorance...

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.

Not me, according to you. ;-p

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.

Calibration is pointless? Thanks for your input...
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

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...

it's you who is good for a laugh, and quite a few.

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.

all of that is true.

all it takes is a different arrangement of pixel and it will look like
****.

I'd note
that *every* raw conversion is an "ad hock solution",
almost by definition!

that's a stretch.

That is a fact.

still a stretch.

nothing is 100% so it's technically true that every raw conversion is
an approximation, but proper conversions are *very* accurate and will
*always* look better than using one for a different camera.

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.

in your opinion maybe.

others expect a proper conversion, not that of a different camera.

not everyone is satisfied with substandard results.

Only you are. Others can tell when results are not
substandard.

yet you're trying to rationalize substandard results.

that's why i use more advanced and more capable software and hardware
than you do.

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.

the only stupid thing is you're satisfied with substandard quality and
expect others to accept it.

they're not going to do that.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 10:57:44 +0200, android wrote:

You obviously don't know what ad hock is.

Of course I do. It's a German white wine dished out by advertising
agencies.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-09-28 22:50:42 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 10:57:44 +0200, android wrote:

You obviously don't know what ad hock is.

Of course I do. It's a German white wine dished out by advertising
agencies.

Oh! For a moment I thought it might be advertising material traded for
cash at a pawnshop.

--
Regards,

Savageduck