bosco1955: Why not going the other way on the ISO....25,50, ?
@pkosewski - it's just the reverse. At low ISO the fill factor (the amount of signal that can be accumulated) limits the cameras ability, at ISO-50 the camera needs to store twice as much charge as at ISO-100 during exposure and that's hard - especially if you don't want to compromise high ISO...
Kabe Luna: To the authors: This is actually not the first Canon EOS Rebel to have a top-deck LCD. In fact, every 35mm film Rebel had one. It's only with the advent of Digital Rebels that Canon omitted the feature. So, the correct distinction is: "This is the first *Digital* Rebel with such a feature..."
The 300D and 350D had LCD displays, just not on the top but the back of the camera...
mclaren777: If these have a Sony-equivalent sensor, I will suddenly feel bad for all of the 7D2 owners out there who missed this tech.
Don't be. I'm a 7DII user and there is nothing in the Rebels I'd miss...
Boky: That mirror flippin’ around will definitely cause jerkiness, especially at slow shutter speeds when firmness is needed most.... case in point for mirrorless I suppose.
I stand corrected, it's the Panasonic which drop A/D conversion depth - the Olympus I meant doesn't even have a proper electronic first shutter, it still uses the mechanical shutter and increases shutter lag to have the camera dissipate that shutter shock to then employ the electronic first shutter curtain - which doesn't really solve the problem... http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4134393686/olympus-updates-om-d-e-m1-with-electronic-first-curtain-anti-shock
zodiacfml: Brilliant! Now, can you help me direct me where to understand flash sync?
@ThorstenMUC, you are wrong for both the flash intensity and the way HSS works...
Nope, there are plenty of solutions for that - including the fact that most DSLR today can do live view - with more mass and thus more dampening of the shutter movement (if even that is still applicable) than the mirrorless toys do... The depicted 7D has an electronic first shutter curtain usable in live view without drawbacks (unlike for example the Olympus mirrorless which drop their quality because the electronic first shutter curtain drops A/D conversion depth)...So on a DSLR you get the best of both worlds!
vesa1tahti: This film shows the absolute oldfascionality of the mechanical shutter. No need to design new DSLRs using this technology from the past. DSLRs are from the past, already now. Let's start to learn to forget their existence and stop to give some support to them in buying these museum monuments.
False the histogram and the blinkies don't have anything to do with the metering, they are an expression of the final image as they are derived from the JPEG as per settings in the camera. And that only applies to the histogram visible after the shot has been taken - if you messed that one up you can redo it - which you often can't do.And yes, both Canon and Nikon are so stupid...
"EVF's show the full DR of what the camera is capable of. If I'm incorrect, can you give a good source of information about this topic?"A good LCD can only display 8 EV at most - in video less. An EVF without localized backlight illumination can never ever manage more than 6EV. That's it.If you want to evaluate a scene and determine which part to capture you need all information, not just a small part. Just for example try to do a portarait against backlight when using fill flash - total failure with the EVF, with the OVF no problem to make up the expression on the face of your subject.
Anastigmat: The reason Canon and Nikon have dominated the professional SLRand DSLR market is their ability to manufacture high speed shutters and mirrors. In contrast, companies like Minolta/Sony, Pentax and Olympus simply could not and cannot equal Canon and Nikon in this area.
@ianp5a tell that to those Sony mirrorless that have a worse shutter shock than DSLR have a mirror shock...
@daddyo: False. on an OVF you can see the full DR your scene has, on the EVF you don't even get the part of the DR that your sensor can capture - and worse of all you can't evaluate the shadows or highlights for junk that's hidden there because the EVF completely fails to show that. If you are so dumb as to correct for blown highlights or blocked shadows on the bases of the EVF you are overcompensating by 2-3 stops on either side of the DR - because the shadows block up 2-3 stops in the EVF before even a lowly JPEG would and the same applies to the blown highlights.
I have tried the latest generation and they are still absolute garbage when compared to an OVF... They can only show about 6EV dynamic range - so when your scene has a decent 10 EV you will neither see the shadows nor the highlights before taking the shot and neither will you do so afterwards. So you'll never know what rubbish you ended up with during composition and thus ruined the shot and can't redo it because you wont see that before you open the image on a decent screen - the same applies to the LCD screen (worse if it's an OLED, they are horrendous). With an OVF you would have seen the problem before you took the shot and had had a chance to react (if you are knowledgable about photography) and not just the EVF junkie who has no clue about anything not shown in the electronic crutch...
@datiswous: "And I would not want to live without the ability to view the image in the viewfinder after taken the shot (the only way to really judge an image)." You do know that the quality of the EVF doesn't allow this to happen in any meaningful way!
RichRMA: A graphic display of why mirrors should be...going away.
For me the EVF are a pure eye sore - you can't see your subject properly (dynamic range of the mini displays is woefully inadequate), it lags, the viewfinder blackout time for the best is 5 times as long as on a modern DSLR, it disturbs the light adaptation of the viewfinder eye resulting in headaces and the inability to see in dark environments after its use for minutes at a time endanger you. EVF are a crutch for those that can't photograph and a bad one at that because with an EVF you'll never learn.
RPJG: I asked this question on the YouTube page, but maybe I'll have better luck here:
I'm sure I'm making an obvious mistake here, but it's killing me :-)
At 4:20 he explains how the top of the picture is "older" than the bottom, due to the way the shutter leaves work. Then at 4:28 he further explains that this is in fact reversed due to the way lenses invert the image, i.e. the bottom of the picture will be "older".
So why is the shadow of the cork, which is lower in the frame and therefore should be "older", actually younger (i.e. it happens later in time than the image of the cork itself, which has only just left the bottle?
@Pecolpan - false application of Occam's razor. The true result is simply that the sensor is read from the top of the frame which happens to be at the bottom of the physical sensor.
Given the fact that that technology works and is robust (look at how beat up that 7D is) - why should it be going away? It provides things that no mirrorless junk could ever provide - like a viewfinder image.
And still this old fashioned tech works leaps and bounds better than the mirrorless which for all the money in the world can't provide a decent viewfinder image and can't autofocus on moving subjects even if you put the subjects in a freezer at 0°K...
He got that right, in video the rolling shutter starts at the top of the frame - which happens to be the bottom of the sensor...
Peet van den Berg: "iTR struggles to accurately track moving subjects, especially fast ones" I have found exactly the opposite - its fast and spot on in half a heartbeat! Are the reviewers used to taking BIF pictures? Love this beast already!
You can't uncouple iTR and tracking (I am not talking about predictive AF) - I am talking about the prediction of any subject movement, the algorithm needs to make certain assumptions on the subject to be able to assist the photographer (and not work against him). Any sports photographer (for whom the iTR tracking has been primarily created) will do his utmost to get a pleasing composition and will do that by moving his frame along with the subject as it moves. So the primary premise of the focus has to be that the photographer will do his best to keep the composition - and that premise is reflected in the way the iTR adjusts focusing! If the system is not do assume this you need to relax that constraint by choosing the correct case (or customizing the case to do so). You still dodge the issue of customization. You seem to be unable to understand that the behaviour you want is pretty much unwanted in all the scenarios for which iTR was created...
The system is geared to predict subject movement, this has different patterns than a photographer moving the camera to achieve a specific composition. Probably the better the movement prediction for sports and wildlife subjects is the less successful it will be for the recomposition task.
Simply try to think what the system is geared to do. It is supposed to support the photographer who picks up a subject and then tracks it - this means the photographer tries to keep the subject at a certain position within the frame. Your use case breaks that very fundamental premise built into the system - I am a software engineer and that premise would be highest priority one, even higher than any feedback from the metering sensor. I also would expect the photographer try and regain the composition whenever that premise isn't matched. Looking how the 7DII performs the tracking I would say the Canon engineers have done just what I suggested.
Did you even try different cases or customizing it?