• Stop warping the histograms by 1-3 stops (i.e. use raw instead of jpeg).



I wonder if it would be more accurate to complain that the histogram doesn't reflect 14bit data when shooting raw? You can't really display the linear RAW data on a histogram and make sense of it because it has to be run through a tone curve. The inaccuracy of the histogram results from the additional headroom that results from 14bit data that is not accounted for in the supplied histogram, along with the fact that the tone curve you use to "develop" the RAW data will be different than the one the camera uses to create the histogram. This is why the histogram changes when you change picture styles, even though picture styles don't affect RAW data (i.e., the camera is using a different tone curve to "develop" the histogram from the RAW data depending on the selected picture style).
  • Stop deleting up to 5 stops of highlights from the RAW data (i.e. allow ISO to be metadata).



Perhaps I'm just not getting what you are trying to say here. Canon is not throwing away 5 stops of highlights, although I can envision a scenerio where one could conclude this based on how one might imagine the ISO function of a DSLR works. A sensor has only one actual sensitivity. Put another way, eachpixel on a sensor captures so many electrons during a capture.For any given shutter speed and aperture there is no way to make it capture more or fewer of them.Any ISO above the base ISO is simplythe result of increasing the gain, amplifying the actual signal (and noise).


For the"L" and "H" settings,the increased sensitivity isn't even the result of an amplication. It is a basically a software manipulation. In the case of images shot in one of the H modes, they are basically ISO 6400 shots with a metadata notation (in the case of RAW files); likewise, L shots are ISO 100 shots with a metadata notation.


Of course, you may have a completely different rationale for making this claimto which I would simply suggest that no company is going to delete 5 stops of highlight data if thereis an easy way to avoid doing so. Dynamic range is becoming the new grail in the DSLR world and everyone (except Fuji) is stuck in roughly the same place. If Canon was too stupid to take advantage of a way to squeeze five additional stops (!) out of their sensors, someone else would.
  • Stop clipping highlights in raw files taken at f/2.8 or less just to compensate for sensor AOR.



I'd be interested in a more detailed exposition of this point. I've never read this claim and I'm not sure what you mean by "sensor AOR".
  • Stop ignoring masked-off pixels: use them for something, such as removing variable pattern noise.



Interesting idea.
  • Stop crippling the Auto ISO for the very purpose that it is most useful: manual mode.



Amen. Amen. AMEN! WTF, Canon?
  • Stop hiding important features such as the dead pixel remapper and shutter count.



Doesn't this seem obvious? Olympus was offering pixel remapping on their digicams already in '04.
  • Stop wasting huge amounts of storage on ludicrous compression like sRAW.



I won't use this mode either but many folks will -- including alot of pro wedding photogs.
  • Stop overriding the photographer's exposure settings just because it's in video.



What gets me is that, from what I can tell, the photog's settings are also overridden for stills taken during video capture. I'm not completely convinced that this is simply a case of Canon withholding features (like a real auto-ISO) to segment the market.
  • Stop limiting video to 12 minutes; start a new file at 4 GB.
  • Stop pumping the audio gain up and down constantly: let the operator set it.
  • Stop forcing the use of the most incompatible framerate (30p) in the world.



This is a commonly-raised objection but it is misleading. For users in the United States, 30p is fully compatible with the ATSC high def standard and playable on all high def TV's and any computer monitor. It can also very easily be downsized to standard def NTSC 60i or converted to 24P HDTV.


The real issue is the cinematic look you get with 24p. This isn't a compatibility issue as much as an aesthetic one and for folks wishing to insert 5D2 footage into a film with other 24p footage it can be an issue insomuch as the look of the video will be different. On the other hand, 30p has 25% more frames than 24p which will help reduce strobing when folks pan while shooting video. I would be willing to wager that this is a bigger benefit for most 5D2 users than the cinematic look of 24p.


Most people will be VERY pleased with 30p. Of course, ideally you should be able to choose.