7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400

[android]

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!

[Sandman]

Post by android
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?

[android]

Post by Sandman

Post by android
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.

It's still 7D2 and as anybody can se: It's not obliterated by the D7100.
It's an interesting ISO since that's what many "action oriented" photogs
wanna be.

Post by Sandman
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?

The 7D2 does better than the D7100, IMNHO...

[android]

Post by Sandman

Post by android
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.

It's still 7D2 and as anybody can se: It's not obliterated by the D7100.
It's an interesting ISO since that's where many "action oriented"
photogs
wanna be.

Post by Sandman
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?

The 7D2 does better than the D7100, IMNSHO...

[Sandman]

Post by android

Post by Sandman

Post by android
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
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.

It's still 7D2 and as anybody can se: It's not obliterated by the
D7100

Yeah, it is.

Post by android

Post by Sandman
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?

The 7D2 does better than the D7100, IMNSHO...

Why can't you read? The 7D is *slightly* better, which is a clear win for
the $600 cheaper, smaller, lighter D7100 that has better battery life,
higher resolution and better LCD screen. Like I said:

Sandman
Re: Who's the winner?
09/17/2014 <***@irc.sandman.net>

"Uh, the D7100 beats the 7D in most areas. The 7D has
slightly better ISO performance and shoots at 10fps compared
to 6fps for the D7100, other than that, it's utterly
trounced."

It has slightly better ISO, and now we see what that gives. Not much. Not
$600 worth of better ISO, and since the D7100 totally owns the 7D in every
other aspect, it's not even a fair comparison to the old D7100. In order
for the 7D to look god, we need to go even lower-end on the Nikon side.

[android]

Post by Sandman
Why can't you read? The 7D is *slightly* better

The thread is still about the 7D2 and D7100. Not the 7D and whatever...

[Sandman]

Post by android

Post by Sandman
Why can't you read? The 7D is *slightly* better

The thread is still about the 7D2 and D7100. Not the 7D and
whatever...

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.

[android]

Post by Sandman
I've been talking about the Mark II the entire
time. I just think Canon's naming scheme is stupid.

That makes sense. Except that if one reads that what you actually has
written... It's Canon's fault that you behave stupidly???

You can compare most of the features between the two here:
http://tinyurl.com/np6z9qf
That the Canon has a RAW buffer of 30 captures is indicated here:
http://tinyurl.com/ogz98fx
All while the Nikons buffer seem to 6 ditto, if you believe this:
http://tinyurl.com/phrjoy9

That the Canon produces better jpegs at high ISO has already been shown
here:
http://www.imaging-resource.com
Screen shoot for your convenience here:
http://tinyurl.com/mhpwv5m
The Canon is on the left.

Not that I would expect you to read nor understand any of this, but
other folks might be interested....

[Sandman]

Post by android

I've been talking about the Mark II the entire time. I just think
Canon's naming scheme is stupid.

That makes sense. Except that if one reads that what you actually
has written... It's Canon's fault that you behave stupidly???
http://tinyurl.com/np6z9qf That the Canon has a RAW buffer of 30
captures is indicated here: http://tinyurl.com/ogz98fx All while the
http://tinyurl.com/phrjoy9
That the Canon produces better jpegs at high ISO has already been
shown here: http://www.imaging-resource.com Screen shoot for your
convenience here: http://tinyurl.com/mhpwv5m The Canon is on the
left.
Not that I would expect you to read nor understand any of this, but
other folks might be interested....

My god you're dumb. This is what I wrote in my first post about the 7D vs
the D7100:

Sandman
Re: Who's the winner?
09/17/2014 <***@irc.sandman.net>

"Uh, the D7100 beats the 7D in most areas. The 7D has
slightly better ISO performance and shoots at 10fps compared
to 6fps for the D7100, other than that, it's utterly
trounced."

I.e. I was already well aware of the two small advantages the 7D has, and
seeing how small the difference is with ISO, it's really just one
advantage.

[android]

Post by Sandman

Post by android

I've been talking about the Mark II the entire time. I just think
Canon's naming scheme is stupid.

That makes sense. Except that if one reads that what you actually
has written... It's Canon's fault that you behave stupidly???
http://tinyurl.com/np6z9qf That the Canon has a RAW buffer of 30
captures is indicated here: http://tinyurl.com/ogz98fx All while the
http://tinyurl.com/phrjoy9
That the Canon produces better jpegs at high ISO has already been
shown here: http://www.imaging-resource.com Screen shoot for your
convenience here: http://tinyurl.com/mhpwv5m The Canon is on the
left.
Not that I would expect you to read nor understand any of this, but
other folks might be interested....

My god you're dumb. This is what I wrote in my first post about the 7D vs
Sandman
Re: Who's the winner?
"Uh, the D7100 beats the 7D in most areas. The 7D has
slightly better ISO performance and shoots at 10fps compared
to 6fps for the D7100, other than that, it's utterly
trounced."
I.e. I was already well aware of the two small advantages the 7D has, and
seeing how small the difference is with ISO, it's really just one
advantage.

Almost twice the frame rate, five times the RAW buffer and clearly
better high ISO. That's what action photogs want. I'd say that's it not
the 7D2 thats humiliated. It's the poster that confuses it with a five
year old camera.

[Sandman]

Post by android

Sandman Re: Who's the winner? 09/17/2014
"Uh, the D7100 beats the 7D in most areas. The 7D has slightly
better ISO performance and shoots at 10fps compared to 6fps for
the D7100, other than that, it's utterly trounced."
I.e. I was already well aware of the two small advantages the 7D
has, and seeing how small the difference is with ISO, it's really
just one advantage.

Almost twice the frame rate, five times the RAW buffer and clearly
better high ISO.

Slightly higher frame rate, and barely noticably better ISO performance.
That's $500 for you.

Post by android
That's what action photogs want. I'd say that's it not the 7D2 thats
humiliated. It's the poster that confuses it with a five year old camera.

When did you confuse it with a five year old camera? Either way, you're
humiliated, I agree.

[android]

Post by Sandman

Post by android

Sandman Re: Who's the winner? 09/17/2014
"Uh, the D7100 beats the 7D in most areas. The 7D has slightly
better ISO performance and shoots at 10fps compared to 6fps for
the D7100, other than that, it's utterly trounced."

---

Post by Sandman

Post by android
That's what action photogs want. I'd say that's it not the 7D2 thats
humiliated. It's the poster that confuses it with a five year old camera.

When did you confuse it with a five year old camera? Either way, you're
humiliated, I agree.

You can't read your own writing then...

Post by Sandman
If you can't read English, do
not participate in a written medium.

That's what he wrote...

[Sandman]

Post by android

Post by Sandman

Post by android

Sandman Re: Who's the winner? 09/17/2014
"Uh, the D7100 beats the 7D in most areas. The 7D has slightly
better ISO performance and shoots at 10fps compared to 6fps
for the D7100, other than that, it's utterly trounced."

---

Post by Sandman

Post by android
That's what action photogs want. I'd say that's it not the 7D2
thats humiliated. It's the poster that confuses it with a five
year old camera.

When did you confuse it with a five year old camera? Either way,
you're humiliated, I agree.

You can't read your own writing then...

I can, when did you confuse it for a five year old camera?

[android]

Post by Sandman

Post by android

Post by Sandman

Post by android

Sandman Re: Who's the winner? 09/17/2014
"Uh, the D7100 beats the 7D in most areas. The 7D has slightly
better ISO performance and shoots at 10fps compared to 6fps
for the D7100, other than that, it's utterly trounced."

---

Post by Sandman

Post by android
That's what action photogs want. I'd say that's it not the 7D2
thats humiliated. It's the poster that confuses it with a five
year old camera.

When did you confuse it with a five year old camera? Either way,
you're humiliated, I agree.

You can't read your own writing then...

I can, when did you confuse it for a five year old camera?

You can take him now...

[Wally]

Post by android

Post by Sandman

Post by android

Post by Sandman

Post by android

Sandman Re: Who's the winner? 09/17/2014
"Uh, the D7100 beats the 7D in most areas. The 7D has slightly
better ISO performance and shoots at 10fps compared to 6fps
for the D7100, other than that, it's utterly trounced."

---

Post by Sandman

Post by android
That's what action photogs want. I'd say that's it not the 7D2
thats humiliated. It's the poster that confuses it with a five
year old camera.

When did you confuse it with a five year old camera? Either way,
you're humiliated, I agree.

You can't read your own writing then...

I can, when did you confuse it for a five year old camera?

You can take him now...

There are pretty good reviews and discussions on the 7D2 all over the
web and on-line forums that give good information on the new camera,
minus all the invective and pointless arguing that we have here.

So if it's INFO you want, go to those places. If you want to argue
about everything EXCEPT the 7D2, you have found your ideal place here
in the newsgroup.

The only people who inhabit these newsgroups are those who like to
insult and challenge, and who enjoy being abused in that way.

Sandman, how would you compare the 7D to the 7D?

W

[Sandman]

Post by Wally
There are pretty good reviews and discussions on the 7D2 all over
the web and on-line forums that give good information on the new
camera, minus all the invective and pointless arguing that we have
here.
So if it's INFO you want, go to those places. If you want to argue
about everything EXCEPT the 7D2, you have found your ideal place
here in the newsgroup.
The only people who inhabit these newsgroups are those who like to
insult and challenge, and who enjoy being abused in that way.

But enough about android now.

Post by Wally
Sandman, how would you compare the 7D to the 7D?

I don't use Canon, I dislike their control interface. I think it's too bad
that the new 7D doesn't have better ISO performance, and that even an old
Nikon model outperforms it in most ways while being $500 cheaper.

[Bowser]

Post by android
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!

All you're comparing is JPG engines, which have so many variables that
with a few tweaks you could shift "better" from one camera to the
other in minutes. Show me the raw files and then we'll know. This is
for the curious, but really says nothing.

[Me]

Post by Bowser

Post by android
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!

All you're comparing is JPG engines, which have so many variables that
with a few tweaks you could shift "better" from one camera to the
other in minutes. Show me the raw files and then we'll know. This is
for the curious, but really says nothing.

Only if the raw files aren't "cooked". Fuji are the latest culprit,
with raw files from X-trans sensor models showing less shot noise than
would be possible if quantum efficiency was 100%, kicking in at settings
above ISO 1600. In fact, raw data analysis shows exactly the same
amount of shot noise from ISO 1600 to ISO 6400.

[sid]

Post by Bowser

Post by android
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!

All you're comparing is JPG engines, which have so many variables that
with a few tweaks you could shift "better" from one camera to the
other in minutes. Show me the raw files and then we'll know. This is
for the curious, but really says nothing.

There are raw files here if you are interested

<http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-7d-mark-iiA7.HTM>

[android]

Post by sid

Post by Bowser

Post by android
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!

All you're comparing is JPG engines, which have so many variables that
with a few tweaks you could shift "better" from one camera to the
other in minutes. Show me the raw files and then we'll know. This is
for the curious, but really says nothing.

There are raw files here if you are interested
<http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-7d-mark-iiA7.HTM

Do you have a raw converter for the 7d2s cr2s?

[sid]

Post by android

Post by sid
There are raw files here if you are interested
<http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-7d-mark-iiA7.HTM

Do you have a raw converter for the 7d2s cr2s?

yes, http://rawtherapee.com/blog/features

[android]

Post by sid

Post by android

Post by sid
There are raw files here if you are interested
<http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-7d-mark-iiA7.
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...

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Post by android

Post by sid

Post by android

Post by sid
There are raw files here if you are interested
<http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-7d-mark-iiA7.
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.

[android]

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by android

Post by sid

Post by android

Post by sid
There are raw files here if you are interested
<http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-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.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by android

Post by sid

Post by android

Post by sid
There are raw files here if you are interested
<http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-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.

[android]

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
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!

[android]

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
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/2puu9zm3j81e0f4/7d2%20v%20darktable%20140924.ti
ff?dl=0

;-p

[sid]

Post by android

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
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/2puu9zm3j81e0f4/7d2%20v%20darktable%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.

[nospam]

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
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).

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
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.

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

that's a stretch.

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
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.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Post by nospam

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
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...

Post by nospam

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
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.

Post by nospam

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

that's a stretch.

That is a fact.

Post by nospam

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
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.

Post by nospam
not everyone is satisfied with substandard results.

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

Post by nospam
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.

[android]

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by nospam

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
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.

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by nospam
"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.

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by nospam

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
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/2puu9zm3j81e0f4/7d2%20v%20darktable%20140924.ti
ff?dl=0
http://tinyurl.com/kfhdufc

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by nospam

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
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...

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by nospam

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
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.

Post by nospam
not everyone is satisfied with substandard results.

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

Not me, according to you. ;-p

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by nospam
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...

[Eric Stevens]

Post by android
You obviously don't know what ad hock is.

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

[Savageduck]

Post by Eric Stevens

Post by android
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.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Post by Savageduck

Post by Eric Stevens

Post by android
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.

Aren't all these definitions, including Android's, just a little
but Ad Hoc?

[Savageduck]

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Savageduck

Post by Eric Stevens

Post by android
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.

Aren't all these definitions, including Android's, just a little
but Ad Hoc?

You might say android's extraneous "K" was just too tempting as a target. ;-)

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Post by Savageduck

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Savageduck

Post by Eric Stevens

Post by android
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.

Aren't all these definitions, including Android's,
just a little
but Ad Hoc?

You might say android's extraneous "K" was just too tempting as a target. ;-)

Poor guy missed on all counts with that silly crack.

[android]

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Savageduck

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Savageduck

Post by Eric Stevens

Post by android
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.

It's also a fish! ;-p

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Savageduck

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
Aren't all these definitions, including Android's,
just a little
but Ad Hoc?

You might say android's extraneous "K" was just too tempting as a target. ;-)

You need something to do. Get yourself a better camera...

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
Poor guy missed on all counts with that silly crack.

Spling aside... Spelling contests are fun arn't they? Nevermind...
You don't now the meaning of ad hoc nor in general or in context.
Your own writing proves that!

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Savageduck

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Savageduck

Post by Eric Stevens

Post by android
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.

It's also a fish! ;-p

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Savageduck

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
Aren't all these definitions, including Android's,
just a little
but Ad Hoc?

You might say android's extraneous "K" was just too tempting as a target. ;-)

You need something to do. Get yourself a better camera...

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
Poor guy missed on all counts with that silly crack.

Spling aside... Spelling contests are fun arn't they? Nevermind...
You don't now the meaning of ad hoc nor in general or in context.
Your own writing proves that!

The fact is that *every* conversion from raw sensor data
to any specific image is Ad Hoc. There is no general
correct conversion configuration, and there are no rules
for what will produce a correct image. In fact almost
any conversion, regardless of the configuration, is just
as correct as the next. It's just an Ad Hoc decision
based on specifics decided by the person configuring the
RAW converter for that specific image.

Which is to say, it's about as Ad Hoc as anything can
be.

[android]

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Savageduck

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Savageduck

Post by Eric Stevens

Post by android
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.

It's also a fish! ;-p

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Savageduck

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
Aren't all these definitions, including Android's,
just a little
but Ad Hoc?

You might say android's extraneous "K" was just too tempting as a target. ;-)

You need something to do. Get yourself a better camera...

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
Poor guy missed on all counts with that silly crack.

Spling aside... Spelling contests are fun arn't they? Nevermind...
You don't now the meaning of ad hoc nor in general or in context.
Your own writing proves that!

The fact is that *every* conversion from raw sensor data
to any specific image is Ad Hoc. There is no general
correct conversion configuration, and there are no rules
for what will produce a correct image. In fact almost
any conversion, regardless of the configuration, is just
as correct as the next. It's just an Ad Hoc decision
based on specifics decided by the person configuring the
RAW converter for that specific image.

No, ad hoc is make do... A raw conversion without profiling is only half
done. Using other cameras profiles is make do, i e ad hoc.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Savageduck

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Savageduck

Post by Eric Stevens

Post by android
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.

It's also a fish! ;-p

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Savageduck

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
Aren't all these definitions, including Android's,
just a little
but Ad Hoc?

You might say android's extraneous "K" was just too tempting as a target. ;-)

You need something to do. Get yourself a better camera...

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
Poor guy missed on all counts with that silly crack.

Spling aside... Spelling contests are fun arn't they? Nevermind...
You don't now the meaning of ad hoc nor in general or in context.
Your own writing proves that!

The fact is that *every* conversion from raw sensor data
to any specific image is Ad Hoc. There is no general
correct conversion configuration, and there are no rules
for what will produce a correct image. In fact almost
any conversion, regardless of the configuration, is just
as correct as the next. It's just an Ad Hoc decision
based on specifics decided by the person configuring the
RAW converter for that specific image.

No, ad hoc is make do... A raw conversion without profiling is only half
done. Using other cameras profiles is make do, i e ad hoc.

"Make do" has nothing to do with Ad Hoc. Whether a conversion is
done with or without profiling (which isn't even a part of the
conversion anyway) has nothing to do with whether it is Ad Hoc.
Even if it were half done, that has nothing to do with Ad Hoc.

Look it up in a dictionary!

Ad Hoc means it is a specific instance, improvised or impromptu or
for a specific purpose. That is as opposed to one that follows a
general pattern, is totally planned ahead of time and is not at
all customized.

[android]

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
"Make do" has nothing to do with Ad Hoc. Whether a conversion is
done with or without profiling (which isn't even a part of the
conversion anyway) has nothing to do with whether it is Ad Hoc.
Even if it were half done, that has nothing to do with Ad Hoc.
Look it up in a dictionary!

Learn to read.

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
Ad Hoc means it is a specific instance, improvised or impromptu or
for a specific purpose.

Another way to spell make do...

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
That is as opposed to one that follows a
general pattern, is totally planned ahead of time and is not at
all customized.

As said...

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
"Make do" has nothing to do with Ad Hoc. Whether a conversion is
done with or without profiling (which isn't even a part of the
conversion anyway) has nothing to do with whether it is Ad Hoc.
Even if it were half done, that has nothing to do with Ad Hoc.
Look it up in a dictionary!

Learn to read.

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
Ad Hoc means it is a specific instance, improvised or impromptu or
for a specific purpose.

Another way to spell make do...

More of your "creative" style of spelling?

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
That is as opposed to one that follows a
general pattern, is totally planned ahead of time and is not at
all customized.

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

[android]

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by android
Another way to spell make do...

More of your "creative" style of spelling?

Que?

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by android
Another way to spell make do...

More of your "creative" style of spelling?

Que?

Ad Hock spelling!

[android]

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by android
Another way to spell make do...

More of your "creative" style of spelling?

Que?

Ad Hock spelling!

I had that one corrected, thanks for pointing that out. You have proven
that you don't know the meaning of it though. Spling aside! ;-p
Thank U for recognizing me creativity! :-))

[Savageduck]

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by android
Another way to spell make do...

More of your "creative" style of spelling?

Que?

Ad Hock spelling!

I had that one corrected, thanks for pointing that out. You have proven
that you don't know the meaning of it though. Spling aside! ;-p
Thank U for recognizing me creativity! :-))

Perhaps a clue was needed to show that "¿que?" is not "cue" or "queue".
...K?

[android]

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by android
Another way to spell make do...

More of your "creative" style of spelling?

Que?

Ad Hock spelling!

I had that one corrected, thanks for pointing that out. You have proven
that you don't know the meaning of it though. Spling aside! ;-p
Thank U for recognizing me creativity! :-))

Perhaps a clue was needed to show that "¿que?" is not "cue" or "queue".
...K?

I English that first ? thingy is optional. Que is on loan from the
Spanish the same way Ad Hoc is on loan from the Latin... ;-p

Get a life1

[Savageduck]

Post by android

Post by Savageduck

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by android
Another way to spell make do...

More of your "creative" style of spelling?

Que?

Ad Hock spelling!

I had that one corrected, thanks for pointing that out. You have proven
that you don't know the meaning of it though. Spling aside! ;-p
Thank U for recognizing me creativity! :-))

Perhaps a clue was needed to show that "¿que?" is not "cue" or "queue".
...K?

I English that first ? thingy is optional. Que is on loan from the
Spanish the same way Ad Hoc is on loan from the Latin... ;-p
Get a life1

https://db.tt/gjBql5bJ

[android]

Post by Savageduck

Post by android

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by android
Another way to spell make do...

More of your "creative" style of spelling?

Que?

Ad Hock spelling!

I had that one corrected, thanks for pointing that out. You have proven
that you don't know the meaning of it though. Spling aside! ;-p
Thank U for recognizing me creativity! :-))

Perhaps a clue was needed to show that "¿que?" is not "cue" or "queue".
...K?

I English that first ? thingy is optional. Que is on loan from the
Spanish the same way Ad Hoc is on loan from the Latin... ;-p
Get a life1

https://db.tt/gjBql5bJ

I have a special folder in my dock for those... Drag 'n drop!

[Savageduck]

Post by android

Post by Savageduck

Post by android

Post by Savageduck

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by android
Another way to spell make do...

More of your "creative" style of spelling?

Que?

Ad Hock spelling!

I had that one corrected, thanks for pointing that out. You have proven
that you don't know the meaning of it though. Spling aside! ;-p
Thank U for recognizing me creativity! :-))

Perhaps a clue was needed to show that "¿que?" is not "cue" or "queue".
...K?

I English that first ? thingy is optional. Que is on loan from the
Spanish the same way Ad Hoc is on loan from the Latin... ;-p
Get a life1

https://db.tt/gjBql5bJ

I have a special folder in my dock for those... Drag 'n drop!

https://db.tt/Ce36Vp6h

[android]

Post by Savageduck

Post by android

Post by Savageduck

Post by android

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by android
Another way to spell make do...

More of your "creative" style of spelling?

Que?

Ad Hock spelling!

I had that one corrected, thanks for pointing that out. You have proven
that you don't know the meaning of it though. Spling aside! ;-p
Thank U for recognizing me creativity! :-))

Perhaps a clue was needed to show that "¿que?" is not "cue" or "queue".
...K?

I English that first ? thingy is optional. Que is on loan from the
Spanish the same way Ad Hoc is on loan from the Latin... ;-p
Get a life1

https://db.tt/gjBql5bJ

I have a special folder in my dock for those... Drag 'n drop!

https://db.tt/Ce36Vp6h

I guess that I shouldn't have shared that information... ;-p

[Savageduck]

Post by android

Post by Savageduck

Post by android

Post by Savageduck

Post by android

Post by Savageduck

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by android
Another way to spell make do...

More of your "creative" style of spelling?

Que?

Ad Hock spelling!

I had that one corrected, thanks for pointing that out. You have proven
that you don't know the meaning of it though. Spling aside! ;-p
Thank U for recognizing me creativity! :-))

Perhaps a clue was needed to show that "¿que?" is not "cue" or "queue".
...K?

I English that first ? thingy is optional. Que is on loan from the
Spanish the same way Ad Hoc is on loan from the Latin... ;-p
Get a life1

https://db.tt/gjBql5bJ

I have a special folder in my dock for those... Drag 'n drop!

https://db.tt/Ce36Vp6h

I guess that I shouldn't have shared that information... ;-p

...but things are looking up.
https://db.tt/P3f1I6ar

[android]

Post by Savageduck

Post by android

Post by Savageduck

Post by android

Post by Savageduck

Post by android

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by android
Another way to spell make do...

More of your "creative" style of spelling?

Que?

Ad Hock spelling!

I had that one corrected, thanks for pointing that out. You have proven
that you don't know the meaning of it though. Spling aside! ;-p
Thank U for recognizing me creativity! :-))

Perhaps a clue was needed to show that "¿que?" is not "cue" or "queue".
...K?

I English that first ? thingy is optional. Que is on loan from the
Spanish the same way Ad Hoc is on loan from the Latin... ;-p
Get a life1

https://db.tt/gjBql5bJ

I have a special folder in my dock for those... Drag 'n drop!

https://db.tt/Ce36Vp6h

I guess that I shouldn't have shared that information... ;-p

...but things are looking up.
https://db.tt/P3f1I6ar

You did understand that I referred to the trash? Maybe it seems like a
detour but emptying it now feels sooo good...

[Savageduck]

Post by android

Post by Savageduck

Post by android

Post by Savageduck

Post by android

Post by Savageduck

Post by android

Post by Savageduck

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by android
Another way to spell make do...

More of your "creative" style of spelling?

Que?

Ad Hock spelling!

I had that one corrected, thanks for pointing that out. You have proven
that you don't know the meaning of it though. Spling aside! ;-p
Thank U for recognizing me creativity! :-))

Perhaps a clue was needed to show that "¿que?" is not "cue" or "queue".
...K?

I English that first ? thingy is optional. Que is on loan from the
Spanish the same way Ad Hoc is on loan from the Latin... ;-p
Get a life1

https://db.tt/gjBql5bJ

I have a special folder in my dock for those... Drag 'n drop!

https://db.tt/Ce36Vp6h

I guess that I shouldn't have shared that information... ;-p

...but things are looking up.
https://db.tt/P3f1I6ar

You did understand that I referred to the trash? Maybe it seems like a
detour but emptying it now feels sooo good...

We are here to serve & entertain.

[android]

Post by Savageduck
We are here to serve & entertain.

That would be self appointed, right? Good for you to have found some
meaning in your life.

Congrats!

[Savageduck]

Post by android

Post by Savageduck

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Savageduck

Post by Eric Stevens

Post by android
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.

It's also a fish! ;-p

Post by Savageduck

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
Aren't all these definitions, including Android's,
just a little
but Ad Hoc?

You might say android's extraneous "K" was just too tempting as a target. ;-)

You need something to do. Get yourself a better camera...

<https://db.tt/Bu6Igvz5>

[android]

Post by Savageduck

Post by android

Post by Savageduck

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Savageduck

Post by Eric Stevens

Post by android
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.

It's also a fish! ;-p

Post by Savageduck

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
Aren't all these definitions, including Android's,
just a little
but Ad Hoc?

You might say android's extraneous "K" was just too tempting as a target. ;-)

You need something to do. Get yourself a better camera...

<https://db.tt/Bu6Igvz5>

;-p

[PeterN]

Post by Eric Stevens

Post by android
You obviously don't know what ad hock is.

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

Wrong. It's letting the world know that joint meat from a pig is comfort
food. Expecially when erved with lima beans.

[android]

Post by PeterN

Post by Eric Stevens

Post by android
You obviously don't know what ad hock is.

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

Wrong. It's letting the world know that joint meat from a pig is comfort
food. Expecially when erved with lima beans.

That good to know! :-)

[nospam]

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by nospam

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by android

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
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.

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by nospam

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
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
shit.

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by nospam

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
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.

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by nospam

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
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.

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by nospam
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.

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by nospam
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.

[android]

Post by sid

Post by android

Post by sid
There are raw files here if you are interested
<http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-7d-mark-iiA7.
HTM

Do you have a raw converter for the 7d2s cr2s?

yes, http://rawtherapee.com/blog/features

The last revision of RT was Sep 11. The 7d2 was not released then...