7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400

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.
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

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)

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

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

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]

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.

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)

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]

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]

"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.