# How many of you would....



## BaconBets (Dec 23, 2011)

Pay $2995 for a 1d4 aps-h sensor in a 7d body?

It is conceivable that after the 1Dx is released, Canon could continue selling their APS-H sensor in the smaller form factor of a 7d body, and fill a major void in the market. The pros would flock to the new 1Dx, but perhaps add one of these as a backup. Meanwhile it seems like it would hit the sweet-spot for the prosumer/enthusiast crowd that shoot events, sports and video. Methinks it makes sense.

APS-H (great for video and sports)
7-8 FPS
ISO 12,800 (same as 1d4)
7d AF
7d Body

It would certainly address 80% of the complaints we have....and the hardware is already developed!
The studio/landscaper crowd will have their needs addressed with the upcoming models anyways.
Make sense? Or am I an idiot?


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 23, 2011)

BaconBets said:


> Pay $2995 for a 1d4 aps-h sensor in a 7d body?
> 
> It is conceivable that after the 1Dx is released, Canon could continue selling their APS-H sensor in the smaller form factor of a 7d body, and fill a major void in the market. The pros would flock to the new 1Dx, but perhaps add one of these as a backup. Meanwhile it seems like it would hit the sweet-spot the prosumer/enthusiast crowd that shoot events, sports and video. Methinks it makes sense.
> 
> ...


I would buy 1 in a heartbeat!except they may aswell keep the old 1D AF in it
call it a 6D
edit i would probably buy 2


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 23, 2011)

I'd hazard a guess that you'd sell more with an 18MP aps-c 7D sensor in a 1D4-type body, better sealed, better AF (f/8 focussing!), more fps, longer shutter-life, more bracketing, dual card-slots, etc, for the same $3k.


----------



## BaconBets (Dec 23, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> I would buy 1 in a heartbeat!except they may aswell keep the old 1D AF in it
> call it a 6D
> edit i would probably buy 2



6D was the name I was thinking too.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 23, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> I'd hazard a guess that you'd sell more with an 18MP aps-c 7D sensor in a 1D4-type body, better sealed, better AF (f/8 focussing!), more fps, longer shutter-life, more bracketing, dual card-slots, etc, for the same $3k.


its the small form factor thats the draw card,


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 23, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> dr croubie said:
> 
> 
> > I'd hazard a guess that you'd sell more with an 18MP aps-c 7D sensor in a 1D4-type body, better sealed, better AF (f/8 focussing!), more fps, longer shutter-life, more bracketing, dual card-slots, etc, for the same $3k.
> ...



Or the 1D4 features, AF, fps, f/8 focussing, 7D sensor, in an ungripped 7D body then?


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 23, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > dr croubie said:
> ...


 but the 1D4 APS-H sensor is so much better


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 23, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> dr croubie said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...


Yeah, it is, true. Methinks we need to put this to a vote:
18MP 7D aps-c sensor, 1D4 gripped body, well sealed, 45pt AF with f/8, long-life shutter, 10fps and buffer to match, dual cardslots, 7-shot bracketing
18MP 7D aps-c sensor, 7D-sized ungripped body, the rest as above.
16MP 1D4 aps-h sensor, 7D-sized & sealed body, 19pt af, no f/8, normal shutter life, 8fps and buffer, single cardslot and 3-shot bracket.

If all were the same price and they were the choices?
hmmm, maybe I'd have considered the third option instead of buying the 7D at the time I did. But as it stands as a 7D owner now, the first or second i'd consider now as upgrades to my 7D (if I'm going to upgrade sensors and lose ef-s capability, i'm just going to go straight to FF for landscapes and keep the 7D for birds)

can we make this into a poll?


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 23, 2011)

1. The 7D already has 8fps
2. The 7D already expands to 12800 ISO
3. The 7D's major draw: The 1.6x crop factor
4. The 7D's next major draw: 18 MP 

The ASP-C is the poor man's teleconverter; loss of the 1.6x crop would make all my lenses shorter. Further compounding this problem would be the loss of resolution; unless they significantly increased the megapixel count, my crops would be weakened mightily. I use my 7D largely for bird photography; a 7Dmk II ASP-H would really not work as well for this. Further compounding the problem would be that my ef-s lenses would not work. And, yes, I have several... 

However, what Dr. Croubie mentioned:

18MP 7D aps-c sensor, 1D4 gripped body, well sealed, 45pt AF with f/8, long-life shutter, 10fps and buffer to match, dual cardslots, 7-shot bracketing

I would totally buy one of these...


----------



## handsomerob (Dec 23, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> Yeah, it is, true. Methinks we need to put this to a vote:
> 18MP 7D aps-c sensor, 1D4 gripped body, well sealed, 45pt AF with f/8, long-life shutter, 10fps and buffer to match, dual cardslots, 7-shot bracketing
> 18MP 7D aps-c sensor, 7D-sized ungripped body, the rest as above.
> 16MP 1D4 aps-h sensor, 7D-sized & sealed body, 19pt af, no f/8, normal shutter life, 8fps and buffer, single cardslot and 3-shot bracket.
> ...



If all were the same price;

1st camera is basicaly an APS-C 1DIV. Wildlife/day time sports shooters would LOVE this camera.

2nd one would be too expensive compared to the 1st one since it's the same camera but you don't get a grip with it and yet pay the same price. The 1st one would also have a much better battery, thanks to that integrated grip. So this camera would make the least sense of the 3 options.

3rd one is basicaly an APS-H 7D. Could become popular among low-light sports shooters who can't afford a 1Dx. But for the same price, many would go for the 1st one. It offers better AF, faster shooting, dual cards, grip and better battery = better value IMO.

So the question is; do you want an APS-C 1DIV or an APS-H 7D?

I would definitely go for an APS-C 1DIV.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 23, 2011)

Howabout a 1D4 with single Digi5 and 8fps? Coming in at about $4000


----------



## smirkypants (Dec 23, 2011)

With the technological advances of the last several years, I think Canon could easily build AP-H quality into an AP-C chip. I think this is what most of us want in the 7D2 anyway. Every one of my colleagues says the same thing: I love the 1.6 crop of the 7D but I need the IQ of the 1D4, and I say that too. I shoot the 1D4 at "important" events or when the skies are gray, but use the 7D when conditions are perfect and I am shooting for less important clients. Gotta save those shutter actuations....

So no, I would prefer a better AP-C for sports and an FF for the social photos. The AP-H going forward seems rather pointless to me.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 23, 2011)

smirkypants said:


> So no, I would prefer a better AP-C for sports and an FF for the social photos. The AP-H going forward seems rather pointless to me.



I couldn't live with the messy bokeh that APS-C cameras give. That is not the sensor but the optics - neuro has explained this many times.


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 23, 2011)

An ASP-C 1D4 would be great....

But an ASP-H 7D would be... unthinkable... unconscionable... unacceptable.


----------



## JR (Dec 23, 2011)

I would be very interested to get one, although for me I suspect the 1DX will be more than I can handle so I should be content with it for a whie! What I like about your suggestion though is the use the APS-H sensor instead of the APS-C. I like this idea for a 7D replacement or a new 1 series model. Probably an expensive solution for Canon though to keep this sensor around, but very interesting indeed!


----------



## smirkypants (Dec 23, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> I couldn't live with the messy bokeh that APS-C cameras give. That is not the sensor but the optics - neuro has explained this many times.


The bokehs on a 7D with a 300/2.8, 400/2.8 or 500/4 are anything but messy. The photos are practically as lush and gorgeous in the real world. They aren't as quite as good as the 1D4, but it's really quite unfair to say they are uniformly messy. Besides, my biggest problem with bokeh isn't from the lens or the sensor, it's from the shimmer from the heat, humidity and the harsh light that you get at 100+ yards. Even if you're shooting full frame with a 400/2.8, environmental conditions often kill good bokeh at that distance.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 23, 2011)

AprilForever said:


> An ASP-C 1D4 would be great....
> 
> But an ASP-H 7D would be... unthinkable... unconscionable... unacceptable.



Why? People love the 1D4 so a cut down body might be even better for normal use?


----------



## BaconBets (Dec 23, 2011)

AprilForever said:


> 1. The 7D already has 8fps
> 2. The 7D already expands to 12800 ISO
> 3. The 7D's major draw: The 1.6x crop factor
> 4. The 7D's next major draw: 18 MP



Whoa....slow down!!! It may be possible to expand the 7d to ISO 12800, but please, please, please do not try to equate the 7d at 12800 to the 1d4 APS-H at 12800. The 1d4 sensor has 12800 as a regular ISO setting and is expandable to 102K. The 1d4 image quality will blow the doors off the 7d at 12800.
(and 6400, 3200, 1600, etc)

When I posed the question, it was really because Canon simply does not offer a regular form factor DSLR body that has high image quality and good handling (decent AF, fps, etc.). Many of us would like a camera with high end imaging and well rounded handling that is not the size of a steering wheel. I personally don't need 12fps and sports illustrated AF, but I don't want a camera that has been knee-capped.


----------



## BaconBets (Dec 23, 2011)

JR said:


> I would be very interested to get one, although for me I suspect the 1DX will be more than I can handle so I should be content with it for a whie! What I like about your suggestion though is the use the APS-H sensor instead of the APS-C. I like this idea for a 7D replacement or a new 1 series model. Probably an expensive solution for Canon though to keep this sensor around, but very interesting indeed!



I don't see why it would be expensive for Canon, as there would be no new R&D and it is already in production. I would think there would actually be a huge cost savings for them to recycle an existing product that there would still be heavy consumer demand for.


----------



## KeithR (Dec 23, 2011)

BaconBets said:


> The 1d4 image quality will blow the doors off the 7d at 12800.



OK - show me a 12800 ISO shot from the Mk IV that "blows the doors off" this from my 7D (click on it - the forum software resizes it):







I imagine I'll be waiting a while...



> Canon simply does not offer a regular form factor DSLR body that has high image quality and good handling (decent AF, fps, etc.)



Oh, _please_ - what a bloody stupid thing to say.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 23, 2011)

BaconBets said:


> Pay $2995 for a 1d4 aps-h sensor in a 7d body?



No, I wouldn't. But, I would pay $4299 for an APS-C sensor in a 1D X body (with some noise improvements, 1D X-like AF but with an f/8 center point, 1D X metering and ergonomics).

Anyone else?


----------



## handsomerob (Dec 23, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> BaconBets said:
> 
> 
> > Pay $2995 for a 1d4 aps-h sensor in a 7d body?
> ...



+1 (with noise improvements).

Wildlife/sports shooters would buy an APS-C 1Dx in a heartbeat.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 23, 2011)

> How many of you would...Pay $2995 for a 1d4 aps-h sensor in a 7d body?



Certainly not me. I wouldn't pay $1,600 for an APS-H sensor in a 7D body. 

APS-H is dead...dead...dead. (Except possibly for some very limited niche uses, such as security cameras). Canon's executives have said as much in interviews. Canon never made lenses for the APS-H sensor. The difference in image quality is marginal at best and shrinking. I'd much rather have real improvements to the 7D than recycling a sensor that makes my APS-C lenses worthless. 

Besides, why would anyone pay nearly $1,000 more for a 1.3 crop sensor than the 5D II is currently selling for? If I wanted to go to a larger sensor, I'd just buy a 5D II.



neuroanatomist said:


> BaconBets said:
> 
> 
> > Pay $2995 for a 1d4 aps-h sensor in a 7d body?
> ...



Not $4,299 certainly. But I doubt Canon would bring one to market at that price point. Offer it at half that price and I'm in. (I'd accept some compromises to reach that price point, obviously.)


----------



## JR (Dec 23, 2011)

BaconBets said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > I would be very interested to get one, although for me I suspect the 1DX will be more than I can handle so I should be content with it for a whie! What I like about your suggestion though is the use the APS-H sensor instead of the APS-C. I like this idea for a 7D replacement or a new 1 series model. Probably an expensive solution for Canon though to keep this sensor around, but very interesting indeed!
> ...



Maybe in terms of short terms development cost, but I was thinking that production wise they would now have to carry another skew (sensor type) in addition to their APS-C and FF. This would also mean we would get the existing APS-H sensor as is with no improvement if they were to do it and add no R&D cost. So I was more thinking in term of production, and future development cost. I could be totally of base here.

It is sad that after spending the money on this sensor they would drop it completely.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 23, 2011)

KeithR said:


> this from my 7D...



Yep, that looks fairly noisy, and judging by the exposure settings, was shot in a reasonable amount of light (presumably as a test?), which also helps. Looks like a fair bit of NR, too...perhaps with ACR, but even if not, reducing it to 20% of original size provides substantial NR.

The 1D IV would look that "good" at ISO 25600.



> Canon simply does not offer a regular form factor DSLR body that has high image quality and good handling (decent AF, fps, etc.)



Oh, _please_ - what a bloody stupid thing to say.
[/quote]

No, it's not, but your comment is a bloody rude thing to say, IMO. Perhaps you just have a different (i.e. lower) definition of 'high image quality'.


----------



## JR (Dec 23, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> BaconBets said:
> 
> 
> > Pay $2995 for a 1d4 aps-h sensor in a 7d body?
> ...



Why would you prefer an APS-C over the APS-H? Is it because it would givce you a longer reach with your lenses? I though the APS-H sensor was better then the APS-C sensor?

In anycase I would be a buyer for any crop type sensor new camera with pro-level body and AF, to complement the 1DX. Not sure if I would prefer the 1 series form factor or something smaller to make it easier to carry around...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 23, 2011)

JR said:


> Why would you prefer an APS-C over the APS-H? Is it because it would givce you a longer reach with your lenses? I though the APS-H sensor was better then the APS-C sensor?



Yes, for the longer reach (apparent reach, that is, meaning more pixels on target when focal length is limiting). While it's true that the APS-H sensor delivers better IQ and less noise, if you have to crop the 1.3x image to the FoV of the 1.6x, the IQ is no better (worse if you have to crop even more, i.e. if the 1.6x image had to be cropped), and the resulting image would be much lower resolution, too.


----------



## JR (Dec 23, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, for the longer reach (apparent reach, that is, meaning more pixels on target when focal length is limiting). While it's true that the APS-H sensor delivers better IQ and less noise, if you have to crop the 1.3x image to the FoV of the 1.6x, the IQ is no better (worse if you have to crop even more, i.e. if the 1.6x image had to be cropped), and the resulting image would be much lower resolution, too.



Make sense. Your config would also provide better differentiation with the FF of the 1DX in the sense that if you already have a FF (1DX or other), getting a 1.6x crop sensor gives you a better delta then a 1.3x crop factor. I guess I forgot about this when I wrote my initial question... 

Am sure the next 12 months will be very interesting when Canon unfold its full line-up...


----------



## Viggo (Dec 23, 2011)

Do we just leave out that the aps-h doesn't accept ef-s lenses? Canon will never give up their main group of ef-s lens buyers.. 7 with H sensor will never happen... plus you get no wideangle..


----------



## BaconBets (Dec 23, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> BaconBets said:
> 
> 
> > Pay $2995 for a 1d4 aps-h sensor in a 7d body?
> ...



Neuro, I can't dispute that if an APS-C were released with 1d/5d level performance, there would certainly be interest in it. But right now that is a hypothetical sensor that would require new R&D and lead time. The 1d4 sensor is real and ready to go...and until the 1dx is released, is still Canon's best for events, sports and movies

If Nikon were to recycle their 12mp d3s sensor into the 700s with movie functionality in 2012, Canon would have their hands full.


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 23, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> BaconBets said:
> 
> 
> > Pay $2995 for a 1d4 aps-h sensor in a 7d body?
> ...



I would try to.... might have to wait for a while until it got a bit cheaper, but I would be hugely interested in it...


----------



## BaconBets (Dec 23, 2011)

Viggo said:


> Do we just leave out that the aps-h doesn't accept ef-s lenses? Canon will never give up their main group of ef-s lens buyers.. 7 with H sensor will never happen... plus you get no wideangle..



I was just saying APS-H in a 7d "type" body. I am not saying you have to change the whole 7d line. Call it a 6d...call it whatever.
Give up their ef-s buyers? What $3000+ camera uses ef-s lenses now?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 23, 2011)

BaconBets said:


> Neuro, I can't dispute that if an APS-C were released with 1d/5d level performance, there would certainly be interest in it. But right now that is a hypothetical sensor that would require new R&D and lead time. The 1d4 sensor is real and ready to go...and until the 1dx is released, is still Canon's best for events, sports and movies



It wouldn't have FF performance, but an incremental bump from current (keeping 18 MP) seems reasonable. 

I'm not so sure it's as easy as dropping the sensor in, at least not for $3K. Would they just reuse the 1DIV AF (pro grade), give it the same (pro) 300K shutter durability, same VF coverage? I think lots of redesign would be necessary to use a 'ready to go' sensor, or they'd have to charge a pro price (>$4K), which without an actual pro build and sealing, seems a hard sell.


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 23, 2011)

BaconBets said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > BaconBets said:
> ...



I'm not certain why... The benefits of the D3s are more than just sensor...


----------



## BaconBets (Dec 23, 2011)

AprilForever said:


> BaconBets said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



That was true of the D3 vs the D700 as well...yet the D700 tore it up. History would repeat if Nikon chose to do this.
Most semi-pros are willing to compromise on everything except image quality for a 2nd tier camera.


----------



## BaconBets (Dec 23, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> BaconBets said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro, I can't dispute that if an APS-C were released with 1d/5d level performance, there would certainly be interest in it. But right now that is a hypothetical sensor that would require new R&D and lead time. The 1d4 sensor is real and ready to go...and until the 1dx is released, is still Canon's best for events, sports and movies
> ...



There would be some work involved for sure, but I think it would be taking the guts, making some compromises in the hardware and tweaking vs. building a whole new cam from the ground up. I have to believe Canon is capable of this for $3k if Nikon has already done it.


----------



## jasonsim (Dec 23, 2011)

I for one would not want an APS-H sensor in a 7D II or 6D. I use the 7D for sports and wildlife and welcome the 1.6x crop factor. I use the 5D II for everything else. I really do not see the need for 1.3x crop. I'd say put in the 45 point AF into the 7DII and keep it a 1.6x and give it 10 FPS. That would suite me just fine.


----------



## BaconBets (Dec 23, 2011)

jasonsim said:


> I for one would not want an APS-H sensor in a 7D II or 6D. I use the 7D for sports and wildlife and welcome the 1.6x crop factor. I use the 5D II for everything else. I really do not see the need for 1.3x crop. I'd say put in the 45 point AF into the 7DII and keep it a 1.6x and give it 10 FPS. That would suite me just fine.


It was not so much "needing" a 1.3x crop as it was hunting high end image quality.
Of course if Canon put a 1dx sensor in there I would buy it yesterday, but that will happen when they start putting M3 engines in VW Jettas.
And no APS-C sensor to date can hang. (Although the D7000 1.5x is pretty damn good)

But I will give it to you, if they released a 7d2 with pro IQ APS-C, 45 AF and 10 FPS for a 7d price....would have to buy one!! LOL (please refer to above comment about Jettas)


----------



## Viggo (Dec 23, 2011)

BaconBets said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Do we just leave out that the aps-h doesn't accept ef-s lenses? Canon will never give up their main group of ef-s lens buyers.. 7 with H sensor will never happen... plus you get no wideangle..
> ...



No room in the lineup for that camera. Why don't you just buy my mk4 when I FINALLY get the 1d X with proper AF and FF?

You see what happened with the 60d, everybody started bitching about it being less of a camera than a 50d, but what should Canon do to place a camera between the 7d and the 550d... So if they should both have a 1d X, a "7d" with H-sensor, and the 5d3 AND the 7d2, how would you spec them to make prices in between each other. Doesn't make sense.. If the 5d3 get proper AF, you have it too close to the 1d X, this is what happened, with IQ of the 5d2 and the 1ds3, they killed each other. And the 7d is a BIG seller, and so is the 5d2. Most people don't need 10 or 12 fps, or that insane tracking capibility, well, they need it, they just don't want to shell out that kind of money. And if they do, they buy a 1d X which is MUCH cheaper than most people thought it would be, comparing to the 1ds3. They will end up too close to each other, or you feel that one of these camera is only spec'd to fit a market, not to actually be proper camera filling a gap. Why do you think Canon killed the H-sensor? mk3 owners or would be mk4 owners started getting the 7d, Canon needs to make space, not fill gaps as I see it. Should they also release a camera between the g12 and s95/s100? 

IF you get a 7d type body with H-sensor and 7-8 fps, I would still buy a used mk4, because it was made to be as good as it gets... And if you haven't opened up a 1d and see the inside, you really have no idea how stuffed it is to make it work like they do. And when you see what they have done with the 1d X, and only two stop better iso, it takes some serious engineering to move on from each better model, and then to half all that in size in $3000 dollar body? "the technology exist"? I don't think so...


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 23, 2011)

jasonsim said:


> I for one would not want an APS-H sensor in a 7D II or 6D. I use the 7D for sports and wildlife and welcome the 1.6x crop factor. I use the 5D II for everything else. I really do not see the need for 1.3x crop. I'd say put in the 45 point AF into the 7DII and keep it a 1.6x and give it 10 FPS. That would suite me just fine.



Indeed.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 24, 2011)

for me its the form factor, 1D are nice dont get me wrong but if I could get all the 1D4 into a 7D body that would be awesome. and as to APS-C vs APS-H, I think any of the people that use 1D3 or 1D4 cameras will agree IQ of the APS-H sensors is in a different class to the current 18MP APS-C. I really like to use the 16-35 on an APS-H sensor as a walk around lens as its awesome quality and small and light, so a lighter body would be great to go with this.
I could then keep my 70-200 on the 5D2 most of the time and the 16-35 on the APS-H and have everything covered for weddings in a 2 camera setup

There is a market for smaller lighter PRO grade cameras not everyone wants the massive form factor of the 1D. Yes its impressive and everyone goes ooo ahh thats a big camera but the convenience of the smaller form is great, current battery tech means you get great life with the 5D2 and 7D batteries. I personally dont care that much for the vertical grip.

of course if a new APS-C sensor came out that was as good as the current 1D4 APS-H sensor (same performance from ISO 100 to ISO6400, in a new 7D2 i would snap that up.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 24, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> of course if a new APS-C sensor came out that was as good as the current 1D4 APS-H sensor (same performance from ISO 100 to ISO6400, in a new 7D2 i would snap that up.



The bokeh from an APS-C is never going to be as good as the APS-H or full frame


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 24, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > of course if a new APS-C sensor came out that was as good as the current 1D4 APS-H sensor (same performance from ISO 100 to ISO6400, in a new 7D2 i would snap that up.
> ...



Question - how does sensor size affect the _quality_ of the OOF blur?


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 24, 2011)

Quality?

You can tell a crop by the blotchiness of the background


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 24, 2011)

As I understand it:

From wickedwombat
"if you get a lens that works on both FF and crop let say a 17-40 f4L then fit it to each and frame the shot exactly the same so that both images filled each cameras view to the same extents. You would be standing closer to the subject using the FF and further away using the crop. Because you are closer to the subject you will have a shallower depth of field than the same lens taking the same shot on the crop since using the crop you are further away"

Therefore the background is more OOF.

In my experience the 5DII and 1D4 give a much smoother background than the 7D


----------



## Meh (Dec 24, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> As I understand it:
> 
> From wickedwombat
> "if you get a lens that works on both FF and crop let say a 17-40 f4L then fit it to each and frame the shot exactly the same so that both images filled each cameras view to the same extents. You would be standing closer to the subject using the FF and further away using the crop. Because you are closer to the subject you will have a shallower depth of field than the same lens taking the same shot on the crop since using the crop you are further away"
> ...



More OOF yes, but "quality" of the bokeh is mostly a property of the lens, correct? But then again there really isn't a formal definition of the quality of bokeh so to each his own I suppose.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 24, 2011)

Wickedwombat's statement speaks to quantity, not quality. If I shoot a subject with the 5DII and 70-200 II at ~135mm f/4.5, then stand in the same place with the same lens on a 7D, set to ~85mm and f/2.8. The amount of OOF blur will be the same, as will the perspective. 

Your statement is different, and suggests that despite the same quantity of blur, it will look 'better' on FF. am I correctly interpreting that? 

We often hear that FF is better, but bokeh (which technically means quality, not quantity), isn't one of the ways I've previously heard discussed. 

Thanks!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 24, 2011)

Meh said:


> More OOF yes, but "quality" of the bokeh is mostly a property of the lens, correct? But then again there really isn't a definition of the quality of bokeh so to each his own I suppose.



I have always thought of it as mostly a lens property, yes. That's why my example used the same lens, instead of for example the 135L at f/2 on FF vs. the 85L at f/1.2 on APS-C. 

A crop sensor can improve bokeh in one definite way - OOF specular highlights are best if round, but with many lenses they have a cat's-eye shape at the edges of the frame when the lens is shot wide open. That's caused by vignetting, and an EF lens on APS-C has less vignetting due to the crop sensor, so the cat's-eye effect is reduced or eliminated with an APS-C sensor.


----------



## Meh (Dec 24, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > More OOF yes, but "quality" of the bokeh is mostly a property of the lens, correct? But then again there really isn't a definition of the quality of bokeh so to each his own I suppose.
> ...



Good call but then good call to Brian as well since we just concluded definitively that a crop sensor can improve the quality of the bokeh (in the specific manner and circumstance you just identified). Although, Brian stated the bokeh on an APS-C sensor would never be as good as FF which may be slightly overstated.


----------



## BaconBets (Dec 24, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> That's caused by vignetting, and an EF lens on APS-C has less vignetting due to the crop sensor, so the cat's-eye effect is reduced or eliminated with an APS-C sensor.



Is that another way of saying that APS-C only picks up the center of the image, where lens performance is always much better anyway? I wouldn't necessarily say that means APS-C is "improving" the image
That is one of the merits of APS-H...its picks up more of the image frame than APS-C, but versus full frame it is only missing the weakest technical portion where lens vignetting and fringe focus occurs


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 24, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Wickedwombat's statement speaks to quantity, not quality. If I shoot a subject with the 5DII and 70-200 II at ~135mm f/4.5, then stand in the same place with the same lens on a 7D, set to ~85mm and f/2.8. The amount of OOF blur will be the same, as will the perspective.
> 
> Your statement is different, and suggests that despite the same quantity of blur, it will look 'better' on FF. am I correctly interpreting that?
> 
> ...



That is correct ;D

I think this is worthy of a set of pictures and a separate thread. As I said I can tell from an image whether the body was crop or FF - so there must be a difference.

I was thinking of two sets of comparisons

- same distance from object, different focal length (from zooming)
- same focal length, different distance

I would go for f/2.8 as that is a common apperture.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 24, 2011)

Meh said:


> Good call but then good call to Brian as well since we just concluded definitively that a crop sensor can improve the quality of the bokeh (in the specific manner and circumstance you just identified). Although, Brian stated the bokeh on an APS-C sensor would never be as good as FF which may be slightly overstated.



I think the difference becomes visually less apparent the wider the apperture - for example 85mm at 1.2 both will have fine 'grained' bokeh

I have found that the difference is most marked at f/2.8 and f/4.

Good to see that the benefits of APS-H have been recognised - it is a compromise sensor size, with better lens performance from the crop and closer image performance to the FF.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 24, 2011)

I'm not quite sure I'm getting this, but if the quality is better and the quantity is less, doesn't that make the background more in focus and more cluttered, therefore the image dosen't look as soft and smooth on crop as on FF? That is my experience, so I would always prefer the LESS dof and more blurred background to the quality of the bokeh, because imo, you can't have one without the other.

For example, I use the 70-200 mkII on both 5d2 and the mk4, and I like the less dof of the 5d2, it just looks better, can't say I have thought more of it than that, if the actual highlightspeckels are a different shape it doesn't come across as more intruding than more depth I get from the mk4..

Anyway, Merry Christmas everyone!


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 24, 2011)

Viggo said:


> I'm not quite sure I'm getting this, but if the quality is better and the quantity is less, doesn't that make the background more in focus and more cluttered, therefore the image dosen't look as soft and smooth on crop as on FF? That is my experience, so I would always prefer the LESS dof and more blurred background to the quality of the bokeh, because imo, you can't have one without the other.
> 
> For example, I use the 70-200 mkII on both 5d2 and the mk4, and I like the less dof of the 5d2, it just looks better, can't say I have thought more of it than that, if the actual highlightspeckels are a different shape it doesn't come across as more intruding than more depth I get from the mk4..
> 
> Anyway, Merry Christmas everyone!



That is what I am saying ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 24, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> I think this is worthy of a set of pictures and a separate thread. As I said I can tell from an image whether the body was crop or FF - so there must be a difference.
> 
> I was thinking of two sets of comparisons
> 
> ...



Sounds like a great idea, except it should be f/2.8 on the APS-C and f/4.5 on the FF. If you use f/2.8 on both, you're going to be comparing amount of OOF blur and bokeh - two variables, with no way to isolate just the bokeh. It's well-established that for the same framing, the FF sensor will give shallower DoF and thus more OOF blur, so that factor should be taken out of the comparison, IMO.


----------



## KeithR (Dec 24, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yep, that looks fairly noisy



Oh, don't be silly - 12800 ISO that good from a cropper? I've had plenty of discerning photographers guess that this was around 1600 ISO.



> shot in a reasonable amount of light (presumably as a test?), which also helps.



If *1/125 at ISO 12800 and F/3.5* (50mm f/1.8 lens, handheld), is "a reasonable amount of light" to you, you must live in a cave.



> Looks like a fair bit of NR, too...



Nope - chroma at default (25), luma at 12 in Lr 3, resized and selectively _sharpened_ in PS. 



> reducing it to 20% of original size provides substantial NR.



Yes it does - but my request for a "blow the doors off" alternative from the Mk IV stands. 

_Of course_ the Mk IV should be better, I'm just challenging him (or anyone else) to back up his hyperbole with evidence.



> The 1D IV would look that "good" at ISO 25600.



Let's see this whole extra stop then...



> No, it's not, but your comment is a bloody rude thing to say, IMO



You pander to ridiculous comments if you like - I stand by what I said.



> Perhaps you just have a different (i.e. lower) definition of 'high image quality'.



Ah - I was waiting for that one. No, I've got pretty high standards, and all I'm seeing here to counter my opinion is lots and lots of _talk_: "you're wrong _because I say you are_. I can't _back it up_, but you're wrong..." 

As usual.


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 24, 2011)

Shallow depth of field can at times be problematic, though... Ever taken that epic picture, only to pind the bird's eyes in focus, but the tip of his bill awkwardly oof? Sure, you can stop down the FF camera, but then you end up losing the low light advantage. Are FF cameras reallt all that much better than ASP-C? Especially ASP-H... How much better is it really? For the loss of BOTH wide angle AND tele range, there must needs ne much improved image quality. And I am not convinced there is.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 24, 2011)

AprilForever said:


> Shallow depth of field can at times be problematic, though... Ever taken that epic picture, only to pind the bird's eyes in focus, but the tip of his bill awkwardly oof? Sure, you can stop down the FF camera, but then you end up losing the low light advantage. Are FF cameras reallt all that much better than ASP-C? Especially ASP-H... How much better is it really? For the loss of BOTH wide angle AND tele range, there must needs ne much improved image quality. And I am not convinced there is.



Obviously you have never used a 1D4 or a 5DII. 

Loss of WIDE? You are jesting then?


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 24, 2011)

Mp, not jesting... loss of wide... EF-S doesn't work on ASP-H... Canon's widest for ASP-H is 14mm... the 10-22 beats this out... The point is not improved image quality, it is Vastly improved image quality...


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 24, 2011)

AprilForever said:


> Mp, not jesting... loss of wide... EF-S doesn't work on ASP-H... Canon's widest for ASP-H is 14mm... the 10-22 beats this out... The point is not improved image quality, it is Vastly improved image quality...




Have you fogotten the 8-15 then?

1D4 is top camera in all respects except maybe the 1Ds3


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 24, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I think this is worthy of a set of pictures and a separate thread. As I said I can tell from an image whether the body was crop or FF - so there must be a difference.
> ...



The whole point of ff is that for a given lens then ff will give the best OOF blur - as you are not saddled with DOF that you can't use and OOF blur you can't achieve

So that is three sets of pictures then ;D

With the 5D2, 1D4 and the 7D


----------



## Meh (Dec 24, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> The whole point of ff is that for a given lens then ff will give the best OOF blur - as you are not saddled with DOF that you can't use and OOF blur you can't achieve
> 
> So that is three sets of pictures then ;D
> 
> With the 5D2, 1D4 and the 7D



The whole point of FF is for it's OOF blur? I think there just might be some other reasons. You're overstating your position again which unfortunately, IMO, detracts from the valid part of what you're trying to say.

The point that neuro was making is that the amount of blur and the quality of blur are two different things. Yet you continue to reiterate that a FF sensor will give the best OOF blur when what you seem to really mean is more OOF blur.

Where you are right, as neuro pointed out, is that all other things being equal, there is less vignetting when using a crop sensor therefore there is less cats-eye effect and therefore better bokeh. Not more, but better (subjective as that may be).

The continued debate seems to me to be one of semantics and maybe a hint of defensiveness?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 24, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Have you fogotten the 8-15 then?
> 
> 1D4 is top camera in all respects except maybe the 1Ds3



Since when is a fisheye a substitute for a rectilinear lens? Plus, if I wanted the fisheye look, I'd want the capability for circular fisheye. Can I get that with the 8-15mm on APS-H. 

The 1DIV is a compromise camera, because the APS-H is a compromise sensor. Canon has admitted that in two ways. First, by acknowledging that APS-H was needed for higher frame rates not achievable with FF, and stating that APS-H was the largest sensor that could be produced by a single stamping pass (at the time) for cost effectiveness. Second, by releasing the 1D X - FF with 12 fps - merging the lines and abandoning APS-H in the flagship clearly says they've engineered beyond the need for compromise. 



briansquibb said:


> The whole point of ff is that for a given lens then ff will give the *best* OOF blur - as you are not saddled with DOF that you can't use and OOF blur you can't achieve



FF will give the *most* OOF blur, but that's not bokeh. Bokeh is quality, not quantity. Nothing so far, here or elsewhere, has demonstrated that the bokeh is better with FF. If you're going to shoot all bodies at the same aperture, that's meaningless for comparing bokeh, and we already know that the larger the sensor the more OOF blur, so what would a bunch of f/2.8 shots prove?

An example - say you've got an 85mm f/1.8 and are shooting a family of four in an outdoor setting. You have a 5DII and a 7D, and plenty of room. You need a DoF of ~0.3 m to get all four subjects in focus. To frame the family with the FF camera, you need to be about 4 m away. That means f/2.8 will give you the DoF you need. Or, you could use the 7D, back up to 6.4 m for the same framing, and set the aperture to f/1.8 for the same DoF (granted, a different perspective). Now, you've got the same framing, same DoF, same amount of OOF blur - so, which camera gives the better bokeh? 

It might be the 7D...on the 7D the lens is wide open, so OOF highlights will be round, whereas on the 5DII you'd be at f/2.8 and seeing octagonal highlights from the aperture blades. But then again, the 85/1.8 will have less longitudinal CA at f/2.8 than wide open, so FF is better there.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 24, 2011)

The 1D4 may be a compromise camera - but so is every other camera on the market today.

I would put the 1D4 as the best compromise currently available. Just ask the wildlifers about the 1DX and you will find they dont like ff - and want the APS-H. We all have different preferences, there is no absolutes here.

Personally I am not too interested in the semantics and theory of these terms - all that counts for me is the finished image and whether it meets the criteria. Bokeh to most means the OOF blur - if the visual effect is better with ff rather than crop - then most would go for ff, regardless of each individual pixel. Crop, IMO, turn good blur into bad blur.

I think you find that most people want the most pleasing looking image which I think you will find will be the creamy blur of the ff. If you are shooting wide open with a ff then a crop will mess the OOF blur because it cant shoot any mode wide open


----------



## Meh (Dec 24, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> The 1D4 may be a compromise camera - but so is every other camera on the market today.



Possibly true, but not relevant to the to your argument that the bokeh is better the larger the sensor. The sky is also blue and water is wet but neither of those things affect the quality of bokeh either.



briansquibb said:


> I would put the 1D4 as the best compromise currently available. Just ask the wildlifers about the 1DX and you will find they dont like ff - and want the APS-H. We all have different preferences, there is no absolutes here.



Possibly true (although there are no absolutes as you state in the same breath), but not because of better bokeh rather because of the higher spatial resolution of the sensor which provides more pixels on subject in focal length limited circumstances such as wildlife photography.



briansquibb said:


> Personally I am not too interested in the semantics and theory of these terms - all that counts for me is the finished image and whether it meets the criteria. Bokeh to most means the OOF blur - if the visual effect is better with ff rather than crop - then most would go for ff, regardless of each individual pixel. Crop, IMO, turn good blur into bad blur.



Sorry but you are insisting on sticking to your questionable choice of words in defining more blur as better blur which is clearly not the same thing. Do you really not see the point that there is a difference? Defending your point by essentially stating "yeah, but it's my opinion" is not really useful.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 24, 2011)

Meh said:


> Defending your point by essentially stating "yeah, but it's my opinion" is not really useful.



It is my opinion that this thread is going nowhere. In an artistic world, opinion counts more than science as it sells more pictures.


----------



## BaconBets (Dec 24, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 1DIV is a compromise camera, because the APS-H is a compromise sensor. Second, by releasing the 1D X - FF with 12 fps - merging the lines and abandoning APS-H in the flagship clearly says they've engineered beyond the need for compromise.



I agree with you 100%. 
But that is for the flagship. Many of us simply do not want a flagship body build and military FPS. Since they will probably not put a 1dx sensor in a regular body until 2016, putting the APS-H in a reg body is something that would compromise my wallet for $3K. Or a 5d2 sensor with good handling. Or anything that does not force us to ask ourselves, "would I rather have solid imaging or solid handling?"
A 5d2 can take an awesome picture of a mountain. Thank God mountains don't ride bicycles in the evening.


----------



## Meh (Dec 24, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > Defending your point by essentially stating "yeah, but it's my opinion" is not really useful.
> ...



And you are certainly welcome to your opinion. Thanks for confirming my point. Edit... I just gave you a +1 for being a good photographer... kudos.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 24, 2011)

Makes sense, and I do understand your viewpoint, Brian. 

I somewhat disagree about the bokeh definition. Put another way, I agree that many people use the term that way, but many people use the word 'irregardless' or spell 'a lot' as one word...being common doesn't make it correct. 

I still don't understand 'bad blur' in the context of sensor size - the 85L at f/1.2 on my 7D seems to produce good blur, both in quantity and quality. On FF, f/1.2 is often too thin a DoF anyway. As you said, for a given lens and aperture, you get more blur with FF, and that is 'pleasing'. Personally, I do care about quality/bokeh. For example, the 100-400mm at f/5.6 with a small, close subject (e.g. a songbird) can produce lots of OOF blur, but frankly, it doesn't look that good, highlights are jittery and 'nervous-looking' (subjective terms, I know - but then bokeh is subjective). 

For the same shot, whether on FF or crop, the 70-200 II + 2x II TC (at 400mm f/5.6) produces a much nicer bokeh than the 100-400mm (at 400mm f/5.6). Come to think of it, that's a great illustration of my point - same DoF, same amount of OOF blur, but quality/bokeh is dependent on the lens. 

In a perfect world, you'd want both a lot of OOF blur, and excellent bokeh. But it's a fact that at some apertures (i.e. f/2 and narrower on FF), you can get the same amount of OOF blur on APS-C. If that gives you DoF that's thin enough for your needs, then ideally you'd want that amount of blur to have the best quality possible - and that just might be on APS-C. 

But hey - FF makes it easy, just open it right up and shoot away. 

I certainly agree that the 1DIV is a great compromise. But it's still a compromise - for example, the contention that FF gives the 'best blur' and 1.6x gives 'bad blur'. The difference going from FF to APS-H is actually greater than the difference going from APS-H to APS-C. The DoF change is effectively linear, so if FF is good and 1.6x is bad, 1.3x is closer to bad than to good... Nevertheless, I agree that we won't get any further discussing it. At some point, I'll try to post a couple of test shots (different bodies, same lens, same framing and DoF, and see if there's a detectable difference in bokeh. 

I do hear you on the loss of crop with the 1D X - that's why it's replacing my 5DII but I'm keeping my 7D.


----------



## smirkypants (Dec 24, 2011)

I shot this with a 7D and a 400 f2.8 at 200 ISO and a shutter speed of around 400. I defy any one to describe the bokeh as messy or bad in any way. It was even drizzly out. The FF may provide more separation and a little more blur, but I don't think the quality is really much different.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 24, 2011)

Wow, ok, I was clearly wrong. The bokeh in that shot is clearly crap. It must be because of the APS-C sensor, and it would have been much cleaner and smoother on FF. </sarcasm> :

@smirkypants - nice shot! +1


----------



## smirkypants (Dec 24, 2011)

Thanks Neuro. Seriously, it's 90% lens quality when it comes to bokeh. The 400/2.8 7D combination can get me killer shots, I just hate hate hate the size. Sometimes when I shoot with the 1D4 I wish I had used the 7D.

Consider: 
7D + 300/2.8 = 480mm equivalent.
1D4 + 400/2.8 = 520mm equivalent.

I don't know about any of you, but I can hand-hold a 300/2.8 for quite a long time and there's no way on God's green earth that I'm doing that with the 400.

Tell me that 40 extra mms are worth about $5000 and about 3 pounds. No way! 

There have been a few years of technological improvements since the 1D4's sensor. I'm pretty sure they can build a 1D4 with a APS-C and maintain the same level of quality.


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 24, 2011)

smirkypants said:


> I shot this with a 7D and a 400 f2.8 at 200 ISO and a shutter speed of around 400. I defy any one to describe the bokeh as messy or bad in any way. It was even drizzly out. The FF may provide more separation and a little more blur, but I don't think the quality is really much different.



Love the picture!!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 24, 2011)

smirkypants said:


> I'm pretty sure they can build a 1D4 with a APS-C and maintain the same level of quality.



Agreed - that exactly what I mentioned earlier in this thread (and strongly hope for!).


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 24, 2011)

This is the worst bokeh I've ever seen from a shot I've taken.
7D and 70-300L @ 277mm, f/5.6, iso160, 1/400s Tv.
If only I'd had a Full Frame or Medium Format, That distracting background would have just melted away instead of being so in-your-face like it is here.
[/sarcasm]

Uncropped (except a slice off the top to make it a 14x9 ratio), from about a meter away.
The key to taking good shots is not your equipment, it's in knowing how to use it.


----------



## handsomerob (Dec 25, 2011)

very nice shots, congrats to both of you.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 25, 2011)

Here is one from a compromise camera - if only I had used the 5DII I would have got a better background [/sacasm off]


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 25, 2011)

smirkypants said:


> I don't know about any of you, but I can hand-hold a 300/2.8 for quite a long time and there's no way on God's green earth that I'm doing that with the 400.



I walk around with the 400 f/2.8 on the 1d4 and the 70-200 f/2.8 II on the 5DII. I use a Black Rapid double strap to help.


----------



## BaconBets (Dec 25, 2011)

"I see no reason Canon should produce a compromise camera. What is the point? When I want to do this, I use the 5d. When I want to do that, I use the 7d."

"Why do you do that?"

"Because one camera does this well, and one camera does that well."

"So you had to buy 2 different cameras that are the same size and use the same lenses?"

"Yes...I compromised"

-irony


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 25, 2011)

BaconBets said:


> "I see no reason Canon should produce a compromise camera. What is the point? When I want to do this, I use the 5d. When I want to do that, I use the 7d."
> 
> "Why do you do that?"
> 
> ...



When a lens costs over $7500 it is cheaper to buy a ff and a crop instead of a second lens - no compromise just sound economics

When I want to do this, I use the 5d. When I want to do that, I use the 1d4. Simple logic of buying the right tool for the job. I dont consider the 1D4 as a compromise camera.

Here is another pretty picture for you on Christmas eve - or in the UK, Christmas day


----------



## handsomerob (Dec 25, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> I walk around with the 400 f/2.8 on the 1d4 and the 70-200 f/2.8 II on the 5DII. I use a Black Rapid double strap to help.



Seems you like to get attention


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 25, 2011)

handsomerob said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I walk around with the 400 f/2.8 on the 1d4 and the 70-200 f/2.8 II on the 5DII. I use a Black Rapid double strap to help.
> ...



Better than leaving them in the car


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 25, 2011)

Both with the 85mm f/1.2L II, framing adjusted by changing distance. Which is APS-C, which is FF?

#1






#2


----------



## BaconBets (Dec 25, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> BaconBets said:
> 
> 
> > "I see no reason Canon should produce a compromise camera. What is the point? When I want to do this, I use the 5d. When I want to do that, I use the 7d."
> ...



Not everyone shoots eagles with hubble lenses, and you have a 1D4 already.
I don't consider the 1D4 a compromise camera either, more of a well rounded camera.
But this thread started as a scenario for someone that wants to buy a regular form factor body and doesn't own all these cameras already.

Pretend you don't own any cameras. You have about $4K for 1 body and a couple lenses. What do you do?
I was simply suggesting that after the 1dx is released, putting a 1d4 sensor in a 7d type body would give a nice well rounded option to someone who doesn't own an arsenal of cameras already, and doesn't want a large 1d built like a brick [email protected]#thouse.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 25, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Both with the 85mm f/1.2L II, framing adjusted by changing distance. Which is APS-C, which is FF?



What is the rest of the exif?

Neither picture has a nice background, especially #1


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 25, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Both with the 85mm f/1.2L II, framing adjusted by changing distance. Which is APS-C, which is FF?
> 
> #1
> 
> ...



My chickens would love it, they have to forage thru the snow for bugs!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 25, 2011)

How about a 3rd one? FF or APS-C?

#3


----------



## Meh (Dec 25, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Both with the 85mm f/1.2L II, framing adjusted by changing distance. Which is APS-C, which is FF?
> ...



Why do you ask for the rest of exif? You stated earlier that you can tell if a photo was shot with a FF or crop. I assumed you meant by looking at the photo, not by reading the exif data.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 25, 2011)

...one more for good measure. #3 and #4 are both at f/5.6.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 25, 2011)

Meh said:


> Why do you ask for the rest of exif? You stated earlier that you can tell if a photo was shot with a FF or crop. I assumed you meant by looking at the photo, not by reading the exif data.



That's what I thought he stated, too....



briansquibb said:


> You can tell a crop by the blotchiness of the background



Yep...by looking at the background.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 25, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> My chickens would love it, they have to forage thru the snow for bugs!



LOL. They'd need a time machine, those were taken in August. Only one snowstorm here so far - but it's 17 degrees outside now.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 25, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> I think the difference becomes visually less apparent the wider the apperture - for example 85mm at 1.2 both will have fine 'grained' bokeh
> 
> I have found that the difference is most marked at f/2.8 and f/4.



That is my current position 



briansquibb said:


> I think this is worthy of a set of pictures and a separate thread.



You have seen two pictures at f/2.8 where the only difference is the body - are you seriously saying that you can't see the difference in the blur?

I suggest this thread has been sidetracked long enough . 



BaconBets said:


> Pay $2995 for a 1d4 aps-h sensor in a 7d body?
> 
> It is conceivable that after the 1Dx is released, Canon could continue selling their APS-H sensor in the smaller form factor of a 7d body, and fill a major void in the market. The pros would flock to the new 1Dx, but perhaps add one of these as a backup. Meanwhile it seems like it would hit the sweet-spot for the prosumer/enthusiast crowd that shoot events, sports and video. Methinks it makes sense.
> 
> ...



Personally I find this a great idea - perhaps with one Digic 5. I find it strange that with the P&S cameras pushing for larger sensors for improved IQ there is a marked resistance on this forum to move on to larger sensors.


----------



## tron (Dec 27, 2011)

BaconBets said:


> Pay $2995 for a 1d4 aps-h sensor in a 7d body?
> 
> It is conceivable that after the 1Dx is released, Canon could continue selling their APS-H sensor in the smaller form factor of a 7d body, and fill a major void in the market. The pros would flock to the new 1Dx, but perhaps add one of these as a backup. Meanwhile it seems like it would hit the sweet-spot for the prosumer/enthusiast crowd that shoot events, sports and video. Methinks it makes sense.
> 
> ...



hello,

it is a good idea with a slight change in naming. I believe that CANON needs a top APS-C body to compete with NIKON and to keep compatibility with the EF-S lenses some of which are really very good (10-22, 17-55, 15-85).

What you are practically saying is that you need a 1DmkIV on a smaller body!
I remember the film days where the EOS 1 series bodies were of reasonable size and we had the option of adding a booster or battery pack (7D has been said to have similar sealing as EOS1n I think) The prices were more reasonable too


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 30, 2011)

tron said:


> BaconBets said:
> 
> 
> > Pay $2995 for a 1d4 aps-h sensor in a 7d body?
> ...



Indeed, Canon DOES need a high end ASP-C body... The D400 is coming out soon, and I am sure it will be a high MP DX body... The d7000 likewise is already out (more of a 60D competitor), and it raised the Nikon DX mp over 12, so I am sure that the D400 will likely raise the bar much futher.

If Canon decides to retreat on the MP, bloat the sensor size, or both of the 7D, it will hurt them badly...


----------

