Sony's New a7RII Camera Delivers World's First Back-Illuminated FF Sensor

[LetTheRightLensIn]

What is this camera going to do to 5Ds sells?

Personally, I hope the Sony A7r II announcement absolutely KILLS the Canon sales, which is the ONLY way Canon executives will wake up from their collective clouds and actually do something innovative for once.

As I own 5D III with a gazillion Canon lenses as well as Sony A7r, I have some thinking to do.. :'(

I think the new X10 is looking in even more danger. This should have better video and, unlike the X10, can actually use Canon lenses (a bit ironic!) and it's small and light too. Of course the form factor is not as friendly for video though, but still, everything about it so much more maxed out. And it takes insanely better stills than the X10. And the price isn't horribly more.

I get a bad feeling the X10 design and the 5Ds design have Canon really locked in with the 5D4. If they want to compete with this other brand stuff the 5D4 would seem to have to make the X10 abd 5Ds be rather niche niche models and they might not be the sort of company to do that.

 

[jrista]

Does anyone know if Sony improved their RAW file handling for this version vs. the A7R?

Apparently not.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/06/10/sony-rx10-ii-rx100-iv-and-a7r-ii-announced-were-blogging-live-from-the-pres

Q: what about lossless compression or un-compressed RAW files for the a7r2?
A: I checked with the product planner for the A7R II - the compression scheme is the same as in the past, no option for uncompressed

Man that's crazy. It seems like every company has to do their own ridiculous thing.
It's very puzzling in this case, since what are they protecting? Nothing. It's just plain bizarre. Maybe it lets them save some buffer and get more fps, but why not a slow, low buffer mode? These are often landscape cameras anyway since it's not a real DSLR.

You should try them out. I haven't seen very many photos in which the compression algorithm caused a problem. In relative terms, I have had FAR more problems with midtone banding and color noise with my Canon cameras than I have had problems with the lossy compression in Sony cameras. Indeed, it isn't ideal, and I too would prefer to have true non-lossy RAW. But...in practice...I haven't actually observed any problems with it. The only times I have seen problems is with astrophotography...but even then, not all the time. I know people who regularly use the A7s at very high ISO for high speed, strong signal astrophotography on a regular basis.

Even with the lossy compression, overall IQ from an A7 series camera for landscape, macro/floral, and similar kinds of photography is well ahead of Canon cameras.

 

[9VIII]

Also note that a BSI sensor should be able to take advantage of larger apertures. Currently f1.2 and wider do not gather more light (shown by Canon increasing ISO behind the scenes when shooting at f1.2, and the incorrect exposure when shooting at f1 using a Speed Booster), theoretically this is caused by interference from the front facing circuitry.
It's going to be really interesting if f1.0 lenses are all of a sudden useful again (not that it affects the Bokeh, just you'll be able to get a proper exposure). I can't wait to see some practical tests with this sensor. If it does work properly at f1.0, then say hello to the new master of Bokeh!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

...Canon is just milking old tech for these idiots who keep buying it.

Yeah, all those high profile professional photographers using Canon, what a bunch of morons. The real experts like you are here on the Internet... :

They will keep on using what they have always been using. That doesn't mean what they are using is better, it just means they don't like change.

The situation is like IBM when PC's first arrived on the scene. People bought mainframes because they were "professionals" and didn't see the point of PCs. They thought it was just a fad, toys for the home. They were too conservative, did not want to embrace a new way of doing things. How many people use mainframes now days? Not that many. PCs on the other hand are everywhere. They were successful because they were flexible, accessible and affordable. They could do it all and they could do it anywhere.

That is what is going to happen in photography. Canon and Nikon are the IBMs of the imaging world, and they will go the way of IBM unless they adopt the technology of the future. It might not happen overnight, but it will happen.

Or heck, even more it was how the IBM PC buyers and Apple buyers used to call Ataris and Amiga toys and said stuff like only a toy computer would have built in graphics and audio coprocessors, autoconfig buses, multi-tasking, separate main and graphics bus, etc.

Serious, REAL, computer users they said would pay a ton of money to buy an IBM or an Apple and avoid the silly little toys. And they'd sit there doing their REAL computer work with their 2 colors and no multi-tasking (and not even a GUI on the IBM PC side for a good while) and spending an hour manually configuring every piece of HW they added.

Now the same people are bragging on their latest Nvidia graphics card and better than CD audio and 16 million colors and so on and so forth. All the stuff they went on about as being useless stuff than nobody needs and that no REAL computer users would ever need. LOL.

OTOH, it was also Apple and Microsoft that survived and Atari and Amiga that died so it also sadly shows that it's really all about the marketing (and sometimes dirty tricks) and getting the right placement into the right crowd at the righ ttiem and you often can live on the top and be far from the best. :-\

But, OTOOH, what the ones that did survive became, after ages, is closer to what they used to laugh at than what they used to be themselves.

So going by this, Canon will wait and milk and sit and annoy and then in another four years come out with all this stuff finally and with their brand leverage come out on top and put the others out.

Anyway it's getting silly now as the two markets are different and the scenarios not quite the same and Canon actually looks better in what they produce than IBM, Apple and MS did, compared to others.

 

[9VIII]

...Canon is just milking old tech for these idiots who keep buying it.

Yeah, all those high profile professional photographers using Canon, what a bunch of morons. The real experts like you are here on the Internet... :

They will keep on using what they have always been using. That doesn't mean what they are using is better, it just means they don't like change.

The situation is like IBM when PC's first arrived on the scene. People bought mainframes because they were "professionals" and didn't see the point of PCs. They thought it was just a fad, toys for the home. They were too conservative, did not want to embrace a new way of doing things. How many people use mainframes now days? Not that many. PCs on the other hand are everywhere. They were successful because they were flexible, accessible and affordable. They could do it all and they could do it anywhere.

That is what is going to happen in photography. Canon and Nikon are the IBMs of the imaging world, and they will go the way of IBM unless they adopt the technology of the future. It might not happen overnight, but it will happen.

Or heck, even more it was how the IBM PC buyers and Apple buyers used to call Ataris and Amiga toys and said stuff like only a toy computer would have built in graphics and audio coprocessors, autoconfig buses, multi-tasking, separate main and graphics bus, etc.

Serious, REAL, computer users they said would pay a ton of money to buy an IBM or an Apple and avoid the silly little toys. And they'd sit there doing their REAL computer work with their 2 colors and no multi-tasking (and not even a GUI on the IBM PC side for a good while) and spending an hour manually configuring every piece of HW they added.

Now the same people are bragging on their latest Nvidia graphics card and better than CD audio and 16 million colors and so on and so forth. All the stuff they went on about as being useless stuff than nobody needs and that no REAL computer users would ever need. LOL.

OTOH, it was also Apple and Microsoft that survived and Atari and Amiga that died so it also sadly shows that it's really all about the marketing (and sometimes dirty tricks) and getting the right placement into the right crowd at the righ ttiem and you often can live on the top and be far from the best. :-\

But, OTOOH, what the ones that did survive became, after ages, is closer to what they used to laugh at than what they used to be themselves.

So going by this, Canon will wait and milk and sit and annoy and then in another four years come out with all this stuff finally and with their brand leverage come out on top and put the others out.

Anyway it's getting silly now as the two markets are different and the scenarios not quite the same and Canon actually looks better in what they produce than IBM, Apple and MS did, compared to others.

You must have missed the other responses to that post. IBM is technically still the largest computer company in the world (if you don't count the Iphone as a computer).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Does anyone know if Sony improved their RAW file handling for this version vs. the A7R?

Apparently not.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/06/10/sony-rx10-ii-rx100-iv-and-a7r-ii-announced-were-blogging-live-from-the-pres

Q: what about lossless compression or un-compressed RAW files for the a7r2?
A: I checked with the product planner for the A7R II - the compression scheme is the same as in the past, no option for uncompressed

Man that's crazy. It seems like every company has to do their own ridiculous thing.
It's very puzzling in this case, since what are they protecting? Nothing. It's just plain bizarre. Maybe it lets them save some buffer and get more fps, but why not a slow, low buffer mode? These are often landscape cameras anyway since it's not a real DSLR.

You should try them out. I haven't seen very many photos in which the compression algorithm caused a problem. In relative terms, I have had FAR more problems with midtone banding and color noise with my Canon cameras than I have had problems with the lossy compression in Sony cameras. Indeed, it isn't ideal, and I too would prefer to have true non-lossy RAW. But...in practice...I haven't actually observed any problems with it. The only times I have seen problems is with astrophotography...but even then, not all the time. I know people who regularly use the A7s at very high ISO for high speed, strong signal astrophotography on a regular basis.

Even with the lossy compression, overall IQ from an A7 series camera for landscape, macro/floral, and similar kinds of photography is well ahead of Canon cameras.

I think I will.

I prefer a real DSLR and Canon UI, but since they don't seem to want to make what I'd want as an upgrade to a 5D3 and since the AF sounds to be so improved on the new Sony and since it can take the Cnaon lenses that I like and it wouldn't cause the grief of a swap to Nikon and horrible prices supertele are these days (I got my Canon super tele back when they were LOL 'affordable' LOL still, but compared to today.... it's true, now it's yikes beyond yikes).

Still keep the 5D3 for sports or the times the Sony UI or mirrorless whatnot it just too much of a trouble and use the SOny for landscapes and maybe even much to most general shooting too?

And since I'm big on video too, man, man this SOny sounds great.

And since my money isn't totally unlimited at this point, the sony+adpater and using all my current glass and getting my reach for wildlife back again and DR and MP for landscapes and wildlife and the 4k video with apparently nice quality and good usability features, all in one cost effective package. sounding nice.

Anyway there are options now other than having to live solely with Canon.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

...Canon is just milking old tech for these idiots who keep buying it.

Yeah, all those high profile professional photographers using Canon, what a bunch of morons. The real experts like you are here on the Internet... :

They will keep on using what they have always been using. That doesn't mean what they are using is better, it just means they don't like change.

The situation is like IBM when PC's first arrived on the scene. People bought mainframes because they were "professionals" and didn't see the point of PCs. They thought it was just a fad, toys for the home. They were too conservative, did not want to embrace a new way of doing things. How many people use mainframes now days? Not that many. PCs on the other hand are everywhere. They were successful because they were flexible, accessible and affordable. They could do it all and they could do it anywhere.

That is what is going to happen in photography. Canon and Nikon are the IBMs of the imaging world, and they will go the way of IBM unless they adopt the technology of the future. It might not happen overnight, but it will happen.

Or heck, even more it was how the IBM PC buyers and Apple buyers used to call Ataris and Amiga toys and said stuff like only a toy computer would have built in graphics and audio coprocessors, autoconfig buses, multi-tasking, separate main and graphics bus, etc.

Serious, REAL, computer users they said would pay a ton of money to buy an IBM or an Apple and avoid the silly little toys. And they'd sit there doing their REAL computer work with their 2 colors and no multi-tasking (and not even a GUI on the IBM PC side for a good while) and spending an hour manually configuring every piece of HW they added.

Now the same people are bragging on their latest Nvidia graphics card and better than CD audio and 16 million colors and so on and so forth. All the stuff they went on about as being useless stuff than nobody needs and that no REAL computer users would ever need. LOL.

OTOH, it was also Apple and Microsoft that survived and Atari and Amiga that died so it also sadly shows that it's really all about the marketing (and sometimes dirty tricks) and getting the right placement into the right crowd at the righ ttiem and you often can live on the top and be far from the best. :-\

But, OTOOH, what the ones that did survive became, after ages, is closer to what they used to laugh at than what they used to be themselves.

So going by this, Canon will wait and milk and sit and annoy and then in another four years come out with all this stuff finally and with their brand leverage come out on top and put the others out.

Anyway it's getting silly now as the two markets are different and the scenarios not quite the same and Canon actually looks better in what they produce than IBM, Apple and MS did, compared to others.

You must have missed the other responses to that post. IBM is technically still the largest computer company in the world (if you don't count the Iphone as a computer).

In terms of PC market they kinda went away a long time ago, but their PC clones and MS won out and as I said the crummy stuff is actually what won out. Although in the end it's, especially the HW, kinda turned into the stuff that the people who used to trump up the crummy stuff used to mock. Just as the whole fanboy crowd, in another 10 years will be going on about how their 5D8 is so sick with it's insane 4k video and beyond belief DR and so on and so forth. One guy who used to trash talk about banding as being absurd nonsense, now that Canon has fixed banding, bashes anyone who fails to mention that Canon has fixed it and runs around crowing about how this makes the new Canon bodies radically, radically better than the old ones ;D ;D.

 

[TheJock]

How can people be like this? such fans of a company they blindingly defend it even when the company is clearly ripping you OFF.

If Sony can do all this at cheaper price you people still defend Canons crap its unbelievable

come on how can you people not see CANON is ripping you guys off so bad.

There must be something that all these blind/ignorant/deluded customers/photographers know that you don’t mate!
I follow the Formula 1, I never miss a single practice, qualifying session or race every single year and one thing I notice is when all the photographers are assembled there is a highly noticeable display of “white lenses”, easily 80% of all that are gathered. Please explain why these professional photographers (on a global scale) are all using this inferior Canon crap when there is all this new superior technology around?

 

[jrista]

How can people be like this? such fans of a company they blindingly defend it even when the company is clearly ripping you OFF.

If Sony can do all this at cheaper price you people still defend Canons crap its unbelievable

come on how can you people not see CANON is ripping you guys off so bad.

There must be something that all these blind/ignorant/deluded customers/photographers know that you don’t mate!
I follow the Formula 1, I never miss a single practice, qualifying session or race every single year and one thing I notice is when all the photographers are assembled there is a highly noticeable display of “white lenses”, easily 80% of all that are gathered. Please explain why these professional photographers (on a global scale) are all using this inferior Canon crap when there is all this new superior technology around?

Samsung and Sony both use white for their supertelephoto lenses. For the same reasons that Canon does.

 

[TheJock]

Sorry, I should have been clearer, all the white lenses have red rings too!

 

[jrista]

But at 4K, it can treat each RGBG matrix on the sensor as a single pixel rather than do Bayer matrix..

When it comes to video, rather than treating 2x2 RGGB matrices as superpixels (which is what it's called when you read them to single output pixels rather than interpolating), you get 4:?:? subsampling. You can have 4:1:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, or 4:4:4. The latter is also called full color R'G'B', and is usually uncompressed, or otherwise "RAW" video. The others are compressed. With 4:1:0 or 4:2:0 subsampling, there is usually enough loss in color fidelity that you can tell the difference when compared to 4:4:4. With 4:2:2, there is a loss in color information, but generally not enough to actually be able to tell the difference from 4:4:4.

My guess is the resolution choice was made to achieve ideal 4:2:2 subsampling and encoding performance for 4K video.

 

[krisbell]

A fantastic and very exciting prospect (on paper)!

And I shake my head in disbelief at the likes of neuro... still vainly clinging to the mast of a sinking ship while all others have swum to safety...lossy RAW?! have you played with the Sony a7r RAWs? They are absolutely mindblowing in terms of detail and headroom. I still use a Canon 5D3 for wildlife but to me, when it comes to landscape photography, its the equivalent of using a smartphone rather than a DSLR when compared with the a7r . I noticed a far greater jump in quality when I went from 5D3 to a7r than when I jumped from Canon 50D to 5D3.

 

[expatinasia]

There must be something that all these blind/ignorant/deluded customers/photographers know that you don’t mate!
I follow the Formula 1, I never miss a single practice, qualifying session or race every single year and one thing I notice is when all the photographers are assembled there is a highly noticeable display of “white lenses”, easily 80% of all that are gathered. Please explain why these professional photographers (on a global scale) are all using this inferior Canon crap when there is all this new superior technology around?

Canon CPS is really quite exceptional. I have no experience of Nikon, but I can tell you that at major international sporting events - such as F1 - Canon is really quite aggressive when it comes to making sure accredited photographers (esp. CPS) have all the latest gear for exactly the reason you mentioned, people notice!

I do not have any stats, but it would not surprise me to see that Canon is the preferred camera manufacturer of more int. sporting events than any other camera producer, and has the largest professional service on site for photographers working the event.

I have always been very impressed with Canon (and CPS) at such events.

 

[Hillsilly]

Jrista, so you're serious about your interest in this camera? I think that's the most significant thing from this whole thread.

 

[TheJock]

There must be something that all these blind/ignorant/deluded customers/photographers know that you don’t mate!
I follow the Formula 1, I never miss a single practice, qualifying session or race every single year and one thing I notice is when all the photographers are assembled there is a highly noticeable display of “white lenses”, easily 80% of all that are gathered. Please explain why these professional photographers (on a global scale) are all using this inferior Canon crap when there is all this new superior technology around?

Canon CPS is really quite exceptional. I have no experience of Nikon, but I can tell you that at major international sporting events - such as F1 - Canon is really quite aggressive when it comes to making sure accredited photographers (esp. CPS) have all the latest gear for exactly the reason you mentioned, people notice!

I do not have any stats, but it would not surprise me to see that Canon is the preferred camera manufacturer of more int. sporting events than any other camera producer, and has the largest professional service on site for photographers working the event.

I have always been very impressed with Canon (and CPS) at such events.

The next major event to easily show who’s got the majority is Wimbledon!
Again, I always notice more Canon big whites than the black of Nikon.
https://www.google.ae/search?q=photographers+at+Wimbledon&biw=1680&bih=881&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCEQsARqFQoTCKi4_MqXh8YCFULpFAod4QIAhw#imgrc=H_QibelXzVgYlM%253A%3Bzfz2SKu_DO6d5M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fmedia4.s-nbcnews.com%252Fj%252Fnewscms%252F2014_27%252F548086%252F140705-petra-kvtova-jsw-1115a_d137a74a226287c3d7358a011b44cdfc.nbcnews-fp-1200-800.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.nbcnews.com%252Fnews%252Fsports%252Fpicture-perfect-kvitova-poses-wimbledon-top-honor-n148751%3B1200%3B800

 

[meywd]

This was cleared but it seem some people like to ignore what doesn't fit their thinking, every Canon shooter would love to have the best AF, DR, High ISO performance, Low ISO performance, and whatever a camera might offer, and if Sony offers that then great, if they really found a way to have fast AF with Canon lenses then awesome, but remember that there is no perfect camera, but Ofc no one needs the perfect camera, a one that is close enough under current technology is good.

However, assuming everyone should jump ship is simply stupid, because Canon lenses are just awesome, and no matter what Sony does a lens will perform better on a native body, and for the studio pros the flash system need to be on par as well, but I understand ppl like jrista who want the best performance, astro demands that, and as a technology fan I would love to have it, but unless I have excess money I can't do it, I love my 5D3 and my 70-200, and until Sony makes a single camera that is capable of both high ISO and fast AF and tracking I don't see me getting one, the strange thing is some want better DR but ignore AF, I think even the 1D X can be improved upon, and as much some people want DR some want better AF.

 

[wockawocka]

40+ MP
Great DR
Truly silent shooting
Focus peaking
In body stabilization

Answers all the shortcomings of my Canon gear. (But it'll still have it's own problems)

I've the a7ii as is, and shooting a dark church, handheld at 1/60 with the 135L is a sight to behold.

Personally, I have no real brand loyalty and I don't think Nikon are to be worried about, it's Sony, this camera is F______ badass.

 

[jrista]

Jrista, so you're serious about your interest in this camera? I think that's the most significant thing from this whole thread.

Absolutely. I held off on the A7r because of a few key things I did not like about it...the heavy shutter, some of the ergos, frame rate. All of that is either fixed or considerably improved with the A7r II. I am also in the process of selling off some of my Canon equipment, my 7D, 100-400mm, 16-35mm, probably my 50mm, an a variety of other photography and astrophotography related things, to fund the purchases of new cameras (definitely a Sony, not sure which one yet, as I still need an astro CCD.)

I definitely want the A7r II for landscapes. I've never liked the IQ I've gotten from Canon cameras for landscapes. Didn't like it with my 450D, had worse banding with the 7D, and really did not like the shadow performance of the 5D III at all (very blotchy on top of the banding.) This year has been really rough on the weather...big rain storms, hail storms, and even still some snow storms in the mountains (yes, in June ), and I just don't have the will or the time to go out into all of that for landscape photography. So the A7r II will probably wait until such time as I feel I can actually use it on a regular basis. At the same time, I need a more every day, all around camera that I can always have with me, ready to go, for birds and wildlife.

I simply cannot haul around my 5D III and giant 600mm lens all the time every day. I really wish I could, but I can't. It would all probably end up stolen at one point or another if I did anyway, and that I simply cannot have. The A6000, with its 11fps, would make an excellent every day birding and wildlife camera. It won't deliver the same kind of subject isolation I can get with the 600mm f/4 and a full frame...but, it will deliver photographs that I simply won't get because the 5D III and 600mm aren't at arms reach every single day. I miss opportunities almost every day because I just don't have a camera that I can bring with me everywhere. Canon has NOTHING that is even remotely as compelling as the A6000. Nothing. Nada. There is no class of Canon camera that compares to the A6000, or for that matter the Samsung NX1. The appeal of the A6000 is the E mount...it would be compatible with FE lenses, which makes it more cost effective. I am extremely intrigued by the NX1...but it doesn't quite offer enough to topple the value of the A6000. I'll be picking up an A6000 (or as is more likely, it's successor once it is announced...a6100? a7000?) once some of my other gear sells.

My experiences with the A7r, A7 II, and A6000 have all been great overall. I have absolutely no complaints about IQ. Everyone complains about the lossy RAW...I really encourage those who are interested to give one of these cameras a try, and see if you can ever spot an artifact from them that would actually matter. Even more important, evaluate whether any compression artifacts you do fine are worse than the read noise of a Canon camera. In my experience, there is absolutely no contest. I'll take Sony's lossy compression every single moment of every single day over Canons read noise. No, lossy compression in "raw" isn't ideal, and it isn't really RAW. But...it doesn't seem to matter in practice either. I simply cannot stand Canon read noise any more, I hate it, I despise it, with a passion... It's the nastiest noise on the market, and I can't wait to be done with it (although sadly, I think I'll be stuck with it so long as I have the 600mm f/4, and I have no plans nor desire to offload that lens...it's a thing of wonder, and the area where Canon truly excels. As such, a 5D IV is definitely in my future, if the specs hold up.)

I absolutely love the IQ from Sony cameras. And for me, that is what it ultimately boils down to...IQ. I just get better IQ with the Alpha series for everything but action photography (and in many cases, with the A6000, even for some action, I'll get excellent results.)

The rumors about the A7r II autfocusing much better with Canon lenses has me particularly intrigued. I did not have great experience with the metabones adapter I used when I rented the A7r last year. It was decent, but AF was slow, as it only used the contrast detection...and the drive was just slow. For landscapes, that did not really matter. The lack of an AA filter was a help with manual focus...when you nailed focus, you KNEW it...everything instantly hit razor sharp and shimmered abit. A micron off perfect focus, and you KNEW it. Interestingly, the lack of an AA filter? Absolutely not a problem. You just have to very slightly defocus...just barely enough to kill off the aliased shimmer...and bam, your lens just became an AA filter, without any meaningful loss in resolution, sharpness, or overall IQ. I guess that's just something you don't realize until you are sitting there doing it...but it's a strong argument for ditching the AA filter. (The only caveat would be with AF...unless you could reliably offset with microfocus adjustment by just the right minuscule amount to ensure autofocus locked just barely off perfect focus to blur high frequencies a bit.)

So yes...very seriously interested in the Sony Alpha line. I've been waiting for the A7r II. I'll take Sony's high DR, BSI 42.4mp any day over Canon's 50.6mp. These days, we have gobs of resolution. It's not about resolution. It's about pure, unadulterated IQ, and the data quality and flexibility to do whatever you want with the data and never have to worry about even a single band of read noise ever appearing, even with insane shadow lifts.

 

[krisbell]

However, assuming everyone should jump ship is simply stupid, because Canon lenses are just awesome, and no matter what Sony does a lens will perform better on a native body

Hi meywd, if that was aimed at me I was only referring to mindless defense of an inferior sensor, sorry I should have made that a little clearer. And I agree Canon lenses are awesome, I own many, but to suggest that lenses will perform better on a native body isnt entirely true. Yes AF may be better, but my Canon 16-35 f4 produces much sharper and more detailed images with a Sony a7r than my 5D3.

 

[expatinasia]

There must be something that all these blind/ignorant/deluded customers/photographers know that you don’t mate!
I follow the Formula 1, I never miss a single practice, qualifying session or race every single year and one thing I notice is when all the photographers are assembled there is a highly noticeable display of “white lenses”, easily 80% of all that are gathered. Please explain why these professional photographers (on a global scale) are all using this inferior Canon crap when there is all this new superior technology around?

Canon CPS is really quite exceptional. I have no experience of Nikon, but I can tell you that at major international sporting events - such as F1 - Canon is really quite aggressive when it comes to making sure accredited photographers (esp. CPS) have all the latest gear for exactly the reason you mentioned, people notice!

I do not have any stats, but it would not surprise me to see that Canon is the preferred camera manufacturer of more int. sporting events than any other camera producer, and has the largest professional service on site for photographers working the event.

I have always been very impressed with Canon (and CPS) at such events.

The next major event to easily show who’s got the majority is Wimbledon!
Again, I always notice more Canon big whites than the black of Nikon.

Yes, for exactly the reasons I mentioned. Canon not only have the best sport cameras and lenses but they also have CPS (which is outstanding - even for photographers coming from overseas for an event) and sponsor far more events than other manufacturers.