# A BSI APS-C EOS R camera is coming in the second half of 2022 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 27, 2021)

> Ever since the launch of the original Canon EOS R, there has been a burning question as to whether or not Canon would be bringing an APS-C RF mount camera to consumers.
> Over the last few years, there have been sporadic reports that this is going to happen eventually.
> I have now been told by a good source that Canon will definitely be bringing an APS-C RF mount camera equipped with a backside-illuminated sensor in the second half of 2022.
> I have also been told that this new BSI APS-C sensor will appear in more than one camera. The resolution of the sensor is unknown at this time, but I think something in the area of 28mp-32mp is quite likely.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## snappy604 (Sep 27, 2021)

that should please a lot of folks.. hope it's true


----------



## Marximusprime (Sep 27, 2021)

I hope so. I'm sticking with my R5, but Canon needs this.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 27, 2021)

A BSI sensor doesn't do a whole lot for IQ as we see from the Nikon Z5 vs Z6, but maybe we'll get something more out of it. A stacked BSI sensor as a 7D mirrorless replacement on the other hand would be very interesting and possibly under £3000.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 27, 2021)

This would be a lovely addition to the Canon R lineup. I just hope they release that rumored compact and lightweight 500mm lens to go with it! (And the R3, R5, R6, etc.)


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 27, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> that should please a lot of folks.. hope it's true


Eagerly waiting for this, will be perfect with RF 100mm Macro which by mid of next year should be in stock everywhere.


----------



## tbgtomcom (Sep 27, 2021)

Sounds like a potential mirrorless version of the 90D. Could be interesting for wildlife. At 30mp it would be like cropping the R5.


----------



## ericblenman (Sep 27, 2021)

I wonder how they will approach lenses going forward.


----------



## Philrp (Sep 27, 2021)

Can't wait, can't wait, can't wait,


----------



## unfocused (Sep 27, 2021)

tbgtomcom said:


> ...At 30mp it would be like cropping the R5.


Only if the R5 were 77 mp.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 27, 2021)

I'm very surprised. This will give us lots to speculate about for the next 9-12 months. Biggest may be, is it a 7D or a 90D successor? I do hope that they give it R6/R5 quality autofocus.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2021)

ericblenman said:


> I wonder how they will approach lenses going forward.


The rumored/roadmapped RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM could serve as an APS-C kit lens or a consumer/inexpensive ultrawide zoom for a sub-$1000 FF EOS R. I highly doubt we'll see an RF equivalent to the EF-S lenses. But then, I doubt we'll see an APS-C EOS R body at all.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 27, 2021)

ericblenman said:


> I wonder how they will approach lenses going forward.


Not a problem. Canon only needs 1-2 lenses for an APS-C body: a standard zoom similar to the 15-85 EF-S and a wide angle similar to the 10-22 EF-S. For everything else, standard RF lens focal lengths are fine or even preferred. With the R system, Canon no longer has to worry about separate mounts as they can easily make those crop lenses automatically crop to 1.6 on any R body just as EF-S lenses do now.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 27, 2021)

There is a whole thread on how this isn't going to happen. We used logic and everything....so, you know...did Canon take that into consideration????


----------



## Franklyok (Sep 27, 2021)

Eos - m , finally completely death. ( if they will not come out with competition to DJI pocket )


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Sep 27, 2021)

While eagerly waiting for an R7, I recently bited the dust and bought an R6 to start playing with Animal Eye AF. Great camera and great AF, I'm having a lot of fun with it. But I will happily [what I feel like will be an] upgrade again to APS-C to get a more light-weight and convenient kit to walk around with all day. I'm never gonna get a "highend enthuiast quality"/"prosumer" [fullframe equivalent] 16-400mm triple-zoomlens kit down to same weight in fullframe as I do with my APS-C 7DII (even though the 7D is one of the heavier cameras).
But still "only" a long-term CR2-rumor. In these covid-times of supplier, production and transportation crisis, its hard to believe in anything before we see it.

From here also a vote for RF equivalents to the EF-S 10-22mm (or the EF-S 10-18mm) and the EF-S 15-85mm. However I could probably also easily survive adapting my existing lenses.


----------



## tbgtomcom (Sep 27, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Only if the R5 were 77 mp.


30mp x 1.5 = 45. Full frame sensor is 36x24. APS-C is typically 22x15.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 27, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> A BSI sensor doesn't do a whole lot for IQ as we see from the Nikon Z5 vs Z6, but maybe we'll get something more out of it. A stacked BSI sensor as a 7D mirrorless replacement on the other hand would be very interesting and possibly under £3000.


Stacked BSI would of course be better but any BSI will result n less noise and better low-light performance.
Not going with stacked BSI will allow Canon to use the same sensor in more affordable cameras.
Fuji has committed to making an APS-C stacked BSI sensor.
As much as I would love a stacked sensor for the rolling shutter performance, I would choose a Canon BSI over a Fuji stacked.
I am sure Fuji fans would see differently.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 27, 2021)

tbgtomcom said:


> 30mp x 1.5 = 45. Full frame sensor is 36x24. APS-C is typically 22x15.


The APS-C is 1.6x _linearly_. That's 2.56x _area_. Your 22x15 says 2.62x, so let's use that: An 30MP APS-C would have same pixel density as a 30MP*2.62 = 78.54MP FF sensor.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 27, 2021)

tbgtomcom said:


> 30mp x 1.5 = 45. Full frame sensor is 36x24. APS-C is typically 22x15.


It is the area that’s relevant, not the linear dimension. Keeping pixel size constant, you can fit 2.56x as many pixels in a FF sensor compared to a 1.6 crop sensor.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 27, 2021)

Bringing out an APS-C sensor in RF mount, _eventually_, makes sense if/when Canon wants RF to fully take over the EF mount bodies. Whether this is the time to do it, is an interesting question.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 27, 2021)

tbgtomcom said:


> Sounds like a potential mirrorless version of the 90D. Could be interesting for wildlife. At 30mp it would be like cropping the R5.


The R5 crops down to something like 18MP in APS-C.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2021)

tbgtomcom said:


> 30mp x 1.5 = 45. Full frame sensor is 36x24. APS-C is typically 22x15.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2021)

docsmith said:


> There is a whole thread on how this isn't going to happen. We used logic and everything....so, you know...did Canon take that into consideration????


I don't think Canon takes CR2 rumors into consideration at all. 

They do generate lots of clicks, though....


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 27, 2021)

kaihp said:


> Bringing out an APS-C sensor in RF mount, _eventually_, makes sense if/when Canon wants RF to fully take over the EF mount bodies.


It makes sense to me even if they don't.
If it will make them more money then they should sell it.
I trust that they have done the research.


----------



## bergstrom (Sep 27, 2021)

I love Canon. There's a shortage of chips and parts etc, but they somehow manage to find the raw materials to make a camera no one was looking for, while some of us are waiting for a new budget FF camera that will be everything that the RP wasn't.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 27, 2021)

Franklyok said:


> Eos - m , finally completely death. ( if they will not come out with competition to DJI pocket )


Doesn't follow in the slightest. After all EOS-M was actually created while the 7D series was current.

If they saw enough of a demand for EOS-M to _create_ it while there were crop sensor EF(-S) DSLRs being sold by the millions, why would they kill it just because they're creating a crop sensor RF mirrorless?

And it seems as though you hate EOS-M enough to want it dead? Why?


----------



## jvillain (Sep 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The rumored/roadmapped RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM could serve as an APS-C kit lens or a consumer/inexpensive ultrawide zoom for a sub-$1000 FF EOS R. I highly doubt we'll see an RF equivalent to the EF-S lenses. But then, I doubt we'll see an APS-C EOS R body at all.


I doubt we will see EFS specific lenses ether. Having said that adapting the EF-S 18-55 3.5 would get you a whole stop of light and more range over the rumored 18-45 4.5. Still the end of 22 is along ways away and I suspect their will be to little to late especially as we won't have confirmation that this isn't just more BS to muddy the water for another year.


----------



## jvillain (Sep 27, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> I love Canon. There's a shortage of chips and parts etc, but they somehow manage to find the raw materials to make a camera no one was looking for, while some of us are waiting for a new budget FF camera that will be everything that the RP wasn't.


They haven't made any thing yet.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 27, 2021)

This CR rumor has ben around the tree so many times is is threadbare, but IF there is substance to such a sensor going in several cameras, that could mean a 7D2 replacement and an M5 replacement. A BSI sensor would not likely go into a Rebel replacement for cost reasons. In any case, not holding my breath.


----------



## USMarineCorpsVet (Sep 27, 2021)

tbgtomcom said:


> 30mp x 1.5 = 45. Full frame sensor is 36x24. APS-C is typically 22x15.


This math only compares to the equivalent focal length in field of view. The R5 in 1.6 crop mode gives you about 17 megapixels.


----------



## JustUs7 (Sep 27, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Doesn't follow in the slightest. After all EOS-M was actually created while the 7D series was current.
> 
> If they saw enough of a demand for EOS-M to _create_ it while there were crop sensor EF(-S) DSLRs being sold by the millions, why would they kill it just because they're creating a crop sensor RF mirrorless?
> 
> And it seems as though you hate EOS-M enough to want it dead? Why?


Because if we keep saying the same thing long enough, eventually we’ll be right. Then, we get to say, “I told you so!” Which is the real goal in all these proclamations.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 27, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> I love Canon. There's a shortage of chips and parts etc, but they somehow manage to find the raw materials to make a camera no one was looking for, while some of us are waiting for a new budget FF camera that will be everything that the RP wasn't.


Once the wafer reaches the factory, Canon can make more crop sensors out of it than full frame sensors. For the same area, Canon can make 2.56x the number of sensors, then it can use more of the wafer's area (smaller sensors allows covering the wafer closer to the edge), and the yield is higher as dust particles damage a smaller chip, leaving the other intact.

That has little effect on the rest of the camera, as there are no other parts which can be smaller, e.g. a mirror.


----------



## addola (Sep 27, 2021)

If the rumor is true, that means Canon-made BSI sensors could make their way to cheaper FF cameras, like the successors to the R5 & R6.


----------



## tbgtomcom (Sep 27, 2021)

Apologies for my math error.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> I love Canon. There's a shortage of chips and parts etc, but they somehow manage to find the raw materials to make a camera no one was looking for, while some of us are waiting for a new budget FF camera that will be everything that the RP wasn't.


Or...someone thinks they will make a camera you weren't looking for, and that someone told CR Guy, and he posted it as a CR2 _rumor_.


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 27, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> I love Canon. There's a shortage of chips and parts etc, but they somehow manage to find the raw materials to make a camera no one was looking for, while some of us are waiting for a new budget FF camera that will be everything that the RP wasn't.


I don't want one either (APSc R series). But if you really think that 'no one was looking for' such a camera, you just plain haven't been paying attention. Even before mirrorless, folks wanted a 7DIII or whatever the next generation was going to be, and now they hope this is it. 



SteveC said:


> Doesn't follow in the slightest. After all EOS-M was actually created while the 7D series was current.
> 
> If they saw enough of a demand for EOS-M to _create_ it while there were crop sensor EF(-S) DSLRs being sold by the millions, why would they kill it just because they're creating a crop sensor RF mirrorless?
> 
> And it seems as though you hate EOS-M enough to want it dead? Why?


I love my M50. I use it for video and a lighter rig to bring places I don't need the horsepower of a bigger DSLR or MILC. But I'm afraid the M series is on its way out too. Canon will figure out how to make an M sized body with the RF mount and an APSc sensor. Then its a single mount to rule them all. 

Brian


----------



## ashmadux (Sep 27, 2021)

the end of next year is not going to help in my next 6 months of projects unfortunately, its just too far out there.
I'm having a devil of a time just having the m6mkii consistently take sharp images. 2nd one is going back to the shop. The R series are wicked expensive as well even before the lenses...its a fun but not fun time to be coming from a 5d series, or needing a small canon aspc (no IBIS, ahrhgrgh)


----------



## kaihp (Sep 27, 2021)

addola said:


> If the rumor is true, that means Canon-made BSI sensors could make their way to cheaper FF cameras, like the successors to the R5 & R6.


Unless there are some major drawbacks from BSI designs - and a quick googling did not stumble on anything that indicates that - I think that we should expect to see BSI sensor in most of not all RF/EF cameras going forward.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> Canon will figure out how to make an M sized body with the RF mount and an APSc sensor. Then its a single mount to rule them all.


Could be...


----------



## john1970 (Sep 27, 2021)

Excellent. I always enjoy a APS-C camera for times when I need more pixels on the subject. I hope it has similar build quality as the 7D Mk2.


----------



## sanj (Sep 27, 2021)

Brilliant. Does show that the pundits in this forum are 'not' always right. This must be humbling.
For me, this will be bought only if it is lighter, smaller with lighter, smaller lenses.


----------



## entoman (Sep 27, 2021)

*IF* the rumour is true, and it’s a *VERY BIG* IF, then this would be an ideal companion to my R5 body, and would probably be my next camera purchase, assuming that it is modelled on the R5 rather than the, er RP.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 27, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Stacked BSI would of course be better but any BSI will result n less noise and better low-light performance.
> Not going with stacked BSI will allow Canon to use the same sensor in more affordable cameras.
> Fuji has committed to making an APS-C stacked BSI sensor.
> As much as I would love a stacked sensor for the rolling shutter performance, I would choose a Canon BSI over a Fuji stacked.
> I am sure Fuji fans would see differently.



BSI does not necessarily result in lower noise levels and improves low-light performance. Again with the examples from Nikon with the D750 and D780 and the Z5 and Z6 we have a BSI vs non BSI sensor and both perform quite equally even at ISO 14,000. Stacked sensors on the other had have clear and noticeable differences from the moment you put your eye up to the EVF.


----------



## Swerky (Sep 27, 2021)

Le


unfocused said:


> Not a problem. Canon only needs 1-2 lenses for an APS-C body: a standard zoom similar to the 15-85 EF-S and a wide angle similar to the 10-22 EF-S. For everything else, standard RF lens focal lengths are fine or even preferred. With the R system, Canon no longer has to worry about separate mounts as they can easily make those crop lenses automatically crop to 1.6 on any R body just as EF-S lenses do now.


Let's hope they do actually plan for those, and no market that aps-c sensor R camera for use to have more reach on telephoto lenses for sports and wildlife.


----------



## AustrianGeek (Sep 27, 2021)

APS-H would make more sense (and skip on smaller image circle lenses from scratch on). The slight crop would give a nice little magnification + faster readout speeds + cheaper to build sensors / cameras (just a cheaper high speed lineup of bodies like the 90D etc). At least that would make more sense than introducing APS-C again on RF mount. ^^


----------



## unfocused (Sep 27, 2021)

I'm not sure about the death of the M system. It seems like the main traits of the M series that appeals to people won't be easy to replicate in the R format. And, why would they need to do that? The M series has found its niche and sells very well. It's probably a little bit like the Rebels, 99% of buyers never move beyond the basic kit they start with.


----------



## fabioduarte (Sep 27, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> This would be a lovely addition to the Canon R lineup. I just hope they release that rumored compact and lightweight 500mm lens to go with it! (And the R3, R5, R6, etc.)


Do you have more details about this rumor on a 500mm lens? 

Thanks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2021)

sanj said:


> Brilliant. Does show that the pundits in this forum are always right. This must be humbling.


An actual announcement by Canon of an APS-C EOS R camera will prove those who argue against it to be wrong. A CR2 rumor is proof of nothing.

*[CR2] – Good information from a known source*
Even known sources that have been correct in the past may not provide perfect information from time to time. This rating means there’s a strong possibility that the information has some truth to it, but it may be incomplete and/or misinterpreted information.


----------



## hoodlum (Sep 27, 2021)

Since Canon is starting from scratch with this mount I wonder if they would consider going to 1.5x crop for APS-C.


----------



## Juangrande (Sep 27, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Unless they also make smaller RFS lenses I just don’t understand the appeal of a smaller sensor but FF lenses. Your not gaining anything, but losing IQ. You can always crop FF for more lens reach. I get that some people want a smaller compact kit for travel or convenience for casual shooting but wasn’t there a statement that Canon wasn’t going to make any RFS glass? Or has that changed again? I guess you could adapt EFS glass. They must be planning on smaller lenses for the system otherwise I see no advantage.


----------



## exige24 (Sep 27, 2021)

That would be an actual amazing camera unlike a recently released camera that shall remain unnamed


----------



## sanj (Sep 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> An actual announcement by Canon of an APS-C EOS R camera will prove those who argue against it to be wrong. A CR2 rumor is proof of nothing.
> 
> *[CR2] – Good information from a known source*
> Even known sources that have been correct in the past may not provide perfect information from time to time. This rating means there’s a strong possibility that the information has some truth to it, but it may be incomplete and/or misinterpreted information.


Still, fighting against it sir? Deep breaths, this has always been impending. My humble thinking.


----------



## exige24 (Sep 27, 2021)

That would be an actual amazing camera unlike a recently released camera that show


hoodlum said:


> Since Canon is starting from scratch with this mount I wonder if they would consider going to 1.5x crop for APS-C.



Hell no! I love that little bit of extra reach that always accompanies Canon's APS-C cameras


----------



## sanj (Sep 27, 2021)

Juangrande said:


> Unless they also make smaller RFS lenses I just don’t understand the appeal of a smaller sensor but FF lenses. Your not gaining anything, but losing IQ. You can always crop FF for more lens reach. I get that some people want a smaller compact kit for travel or convenience for casual shooting but wasn’t there a statement that Canon wasn’t going to make any RFS glass? Or has that changed again? I guess you could adapt EFS glass. They must be planning on smaller lenses for the system otherwise I see no advantage.


My sentiments exactly.


----------



## dcm (Sep 27, 2021)

Franklyok said:


> Eos - m , finally completely death. ( if they will not come out with competition to DJI pocket )


Or, maybe one of the other bodies this sensor is coming to will be an M. 

The delays in the APS-C lines might reflect the limits in the prior sensor technology and BSI gives Canon some new opportunities in these lines.


----------



## LRPP (Sep 27, 2021)

I want to believe but......


----------



## shawnc (Sep 27, 2021)

Looks like I'll be waiting another year for the camera I wanted to buy right after I got my R6, a year ago...


----------



## JohnC (Sep 27, 2021)

So much for me believing we wouldn’t see one of these! Glad they are doing it (likely)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2021)

sanj said:


> Still, fighting against it sir? Deep breaths, this has always been impending. My humble thinking.


The destruction of Earth upon the Sun converting to a red giant is also impending.


----------



## masterpix (Sep 27, 2021)

Marximusprime said:


> I hope so. I'm sticking with my R5, but Canon needs this.


Me too! The R5 is way above any of my expectations. FF sensor allows more flexibility to follow those little things that moves so fast in the sky.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Sep 27, 2021)

LRPP said:


> I want to believe but......
> 
> View attachment 200434



I agree it has been a long ongoing rumour. But even above _could _have been the real true plans a year ago, but Covid-related supplier/production/transportation issues has probably forced Canon (and all other manufacturers) to cancel or postpone prior plans several times during the last 1,5 year.

(and sadly the same could maybe be said about todays rumor :-/ )


----------



## Franklyok (Sep 27, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Doesn't follow in the slightest. After all EOS-M was actually created while the 7D series was current.
> 
> If they saw enough of a demand for EOS-M to _create_ it while there were crop sensor EF(-S) DSLRs being sold by the millions, why would they kill it just because they're creating a crop sensor RF mirrorless?
> 
> And it seems as though you hate EOS-M enough to want it dead? Why?


Back then it was another time … mobile phones were not harassing camera market so much … Now we have mobile phone with 1” sensor creaping in. I have apc camera, and I allmost do not use it at all, because of apple in my pocket… Nowadays I think there is room only for unique products. Therefore I think all in high end to unique, and nothing overlaping. I have had the apc experience enough, and so have many other users. Puting attention to overlaping products is just waste of brain resources.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 27, 2021)

USMarineCorpsVet said:


> This math only compares to the equivalent focal length in field of view. The R5 in 1.6 crop mode gives you about 17 megapixels.


I believe that to scale a FF sensor to APS-C sensor the math is: FF Resolution / (crop factor)^2.

For the R5 the numbers would be 45/(1.6^2) = 17.6.


----------



## reefroamer (Sep 27, 2021)

I can imagine a high-end (R6-level) Canon body with an APSC sensor. What I have much more difficulty imagining is Canon RF-S lenses to address ultra-wide angle needs. It seems, at least on this forum, nearly all the clamoring for a crop sensor R body comes the crowd demanding extra reach for bird and long-distance wildlife photography. I never see posts about the urgent need for a crop R body to shoot wide angle. Almost all the appeal seems to be at the long telephoto end. Nevertheless, the recently announced RF 16/2.8 may prove decent-enough for most shooters to cover the wide end on a crop sensor R body used mainly for telephoto reach.


----------



## Traveler (Sep 27, 2021)

Franklyok said:


> Eos - m , finally completely death. ( if they will not come out with competition to DJI pocket )


EOS-M is for a different market. It existed along with the EF-S so it can coexist with RF APSC system as long as people are buying M cameras


----------



## Traveler (Sep 27, 2021)

reefroamer said:


> I can imagine a high-end (R6-level) Canon body with an APSC sensor. What I have much more difficulty imagining is Canon RF-S lenses to address ultra-wide angle needs. It seems, at least on this forum, nearly all the clamoring for a crop sensor R body comes the crowd demanding extra reach for bird and long-distance wildlife photography. I never see posts about the urgent need for a crop R body to shoot wide angle. Almost all the appeal seems to be at the long telephoto end. Nevertheless, the recently announced RF 16/2.8 may prove decent-enough for most shooters to cover the wide end on a crop sensor R body used mainly for telephoto reach.


1) On Canon website, they even state the "focal length" for APSC (they say "in crop mode...") for the 16mm f/2.8. 
2) Well, people want it for more reach but some of them still want to use the camera for other stuff. So and low end ultra wide would work. But I don't want to see the aperture.. it's gonna be f/11 again


----------



## dwarven (Sep 27, 2021)

LRPP said:


> I want to believe but......
> 
> View attachment 200434



What are COVID delays and parts shortages for 600 Alex?


----------



## Traveler (Sep 27, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> A BSI sensor doesn't do a whole lot for IQ as we see from the Nikon Z5 vs Z6, but maybe we'll get something more out of it. A stacked BSI sensor as a 7D mirrorless replacement on the other hand would be very interesting and possibly under £3000.


It may be a "little R3". Same like the 7D was a small 1D. Then the BSI would make sense for super fast read-out


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 27, 2021)

Traveler said:


> It may be a "little R3". Same like the 7D was a small 1D. Then the BSI would make sense for super fast read-out



That paired with the RF 100-500 would make a lot of folks here very happy. I know the 7d series and 100-400 II are still very popular.


----------



## Traveler (Sep 27, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> I love Canon. There's a shortage of chips and parts etc, but they somehow manage to find the raw materials to make a camera no one was looking for, while some of us are waiting for a new budget FF camera that will be everything that the RP wasn't.


Materials are hard to get and expensive now. So it makes sense to produce high-end cameras first unfortunatelly


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2021)

Franklyok said:


> I have had the apc experience enough, and so have many other users. Puting attention to overlaping products is just waste of brain resources.


Camera makers have produced approximately 3.7 million APS-C cameras so far this year. But maybe you know better because you have more ‘brain resources’.


----------



## Traveler (Sep 27, 2021)

jvillain said:


> I doubt we will see EFS specific lenses ether. Having said that adapting the EF-S 18-55 3.5 would get you a whole stop of light and more range over the rumored 18-45 4.5. Still the end of 22 is along ways away and I suspect their will be to little to late especially as we won't have confirmation that this isn't just more BS to muddy the water for another year.


I think they could bring something like 10-22 to cover the ultra wide end and maybe something like 17-55 as a good kit lens. It wouldn't make sense to buy the 15(14)-35 as a standard zoom for an apsc camera. Too expensive, too heavy, and short zoom range.


----------



## Traveler (Sep 27, 2021)

hoodlum said:


> Since Canon is starting from scratch with this mount I wonder if they would consider going to 1.5x crop for APS-C.


I was thinking the same. But they may want it to be compatible with all the EF-S lenses designed for 1.6. Or, they can crop it slightly when EF-S lens is attached. However, all the R bodies do 1.6x, when you choose crop. So I think that indicates that it's gonna be 1.6 again


----------



## sanj (Sep 27, 2021)

The crop sensor will arrive much before that. Why fret?


neuroanatomist said:


> The destruction of Earth upon the Sun converting to a red giant is also impending.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 27, 2021)

john1970 said:


> I believe that to scale a FF sensor to APS-C sensor the math is: FF Resolution / (crop factor)^2.
> 
> For the R5 the numbers would be 45/(1.6^2) = 17.6.


The 1.6x crop mode of the R5 is 5088x3392 = 17.258 Mpx, pretty close to midway between the 17 Mpx estimate and yours.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2021)

sanj said:


> The crop sensor will arrive much before that. Why fret?


It will arrive if there’s a market for it. We clearly differ in our opinions on whether or not that is the case. Rest assured, Canon has the data.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 27, 2021)

Traveler said:


> It may be a "little R3". Same like the 7D was a small 1D. Then the BSI would make sense for super fast read-out


I think stacked sensor would help the fast readout more than BSI, but only BSI is mentioned here. 
I would love an R7 based on the R3!


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 27, 2021)

LRPP said:


> I want to believe but......
> 
> View attachment 200434


September must be "get the APS-C fans' hopes up" month. Maybe we will get a rumor like this every September until it actually happens.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 27, 2021)

fabioduarte said:


> Do you have more details about this rumor on a 500mm lens?
> 
> Thanks.


Yes, the rumor is in this thread:








Canon will release RF versions of the 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4 in early 2022 [CR2]


As you may already know, Canon plans to officially announce the RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM and RF 600mm f/4L IS USM likely later this month. These are the first of



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## DerWeg (Sep 27, 2021)

Good news. I assume the information concerning the sensor is correct. Most probably all speculations concerning the R system are wrong. It must be the long awaited M5 Mark II or M7. Holding my breath...

Without bad jokes: It would be great if Canon didn't completely forget the users of the M system. I love my R5, but I also like the form factor of my M5. With a better sensor and IBIS, the M system will find buyers, too.


----------



## sanj (Sep 27, 2021)

This gentleman is ahead of the times! :-|


----------



## JustUs7 (Sep 27, 2021)

tbgtomcom said:


> Apologies for my math error.


Just don’t let it happen again or you’ll hear about it 5 to 10 more times. I missed my chance at also showing you that I, too, know the right way to calculate it. Would you like to see the long version without the squaring?


----------



## sanj (Sep 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> It will arrive if there’s a market for it. We clearly differ in our opinions on whether or not that is the case. Rest assured, Canon has the data.


Of course, Canon does. You have told me, and others, several times the Canon is the world leader in crop sensor cameras. It seems logical to me that they would want to have a share in the crop sensor mirrorless cameras as well. Full power to them. They can perhaps sense that DSLR's are rapidly on the way out.


----------



## steen-ag (Sep 27, 2021)

tbgtomcom said:


> 30mp x 1.5 = 45. Full frame sensor is 36x24. APS-C is typically 22x15.


30mmx1.6x1,6=76.8mp


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2021)

sanj said:


> You have told me, and others, several times the Canon is the world leader in crop sensor cameras. It seems logical to me that they would want to have a share in the crop sensor mirrorless cameras as well.


It seemed logical to Canon, too. Nearly a decade ago.

Perhaps you missed the introduction of the APS-C MILC called the EOS M back in 2012. It was followed by 9 additional M-series bodies. There is also a dedicated line of 8 EF-M lenses and an adapter allowing all EF and EF-S lenses to work on EOS M bodies.

What makes you think Canon needs a crop sensor EOS R to ‘have a share in the crop sensor mirrorless cameras’?


----------



## fabioduarte (Sep 27, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Yes, the rumor is in this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks!


----------



## sanj (Sep 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> It seemed logical to Canon, too. Nearly a decade ago.
> 
> Perhaps you missed the introduction of the APS-C MILC called the EOS M back in 2012. It was followed by 9 additional M-series bodies. There is also a dedicated line of 8 EF-M lenses and an adapter allowing all EF and EF-S lenses to work on EOS M bodies.
> 
> What makes you think Canon needs a crop sensor EOS R to ‘have a share in the crop sensor mirrorless cameras’?


I am reacting to the post here.


----------



## Franklyok (Sep 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Camera makers have produced approximately 3.7 million APS-C cameras so far this year. But maybe you know better because you have more ‘brain resources’.


Yeah, I bet onlyfans porn industry is buying them.

In 10 - 15 years these 3.7 million units will end up on African soil and cause environmental shit. You, Sir, end up buying air filters , water filters and what not filters have you. Luckily there is component shortages. God sent issue. I hope it gives time to do more responsible and thoughtful decisions in order to avoid environmental disaster.

Btw my 5D3 still kicks ass, and feel bad about mindless buying.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 27, 2021)

BSI outside of Sony is mostly used to improve speed, so it's safe to assume this will be a 7D style body; something for the big field sports and wildlife shooters who need high pixel density and would be cropping anyway.
I wouldn't be _totally_ surprised if this is more of a 90D 'all-rounder' model, since the speed could be leveraged for video too, but I'd think Canon would want to keep pushing 35mm for video for now, especially the R6. Considering that most video shoters have already moved to mirrorless anyway, it doesn't make much sense to put out another camera to cater to that audience while wildlife photographers are the one remaining holdouts still using SLRs. No other manufacturer has a really _dedicated_ wildlife camera, and it's a demo that Canon have always had the biggest share of, so I'd imagine Canon will want to get a wildlife body out ASAP, get that market into their system before anyone else.

Especially now with the R3 out there, there will be a significant market who want that speed, that build quality, that durability and that AF, but also want more resolution 'reach' than any of the current RF bodies provide. The 7D2 still out-reaches even the R5, so something like a 28-32mp BSI APS-C sensor would really be the minimum required to get that crowd moving to RF. The 32mp sensor in the 90D and M6II is great, so if they reconfigure that into a BSI version and pair it with a better processor and a body with the durability and double card slots of the 7D... well, there's your no-brainer wildlife and long distance sports body, with nothing else on the market that could compare, currently.

BSI isn't quite cost-effective enough yet for it to be shoved into a real low-end body, and RF as a whole still is not yet ready to enter the true entry-level market (especially now a single battery is over £100 and even the cheapest 50mm is more than twice the price of the EF equivalent). Canon have made it very clear they are targetting the pros (and more-money-than-sense hobbyists) with RF first and will be getting to the lower end muchy later. Same approach as they took with EF and with the switch to digital. So anyone hoping for some kind of xxxxD/xxxD body should take another look at the industry's history, especially Canon's, and adjust their expectations.


----------



## Traveler (Sep 27, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I think stacked sensor would help the fast readout more than BSI, but only BSI is mentioned here.
> I would love an R7 based on the R3!


You're right


----------



## tbgtomcom (Sep 27, 2021)

JustUs7 said:


> Just don’t let it happen again or you’ll hear about it 5 to 10 more times. I missed my chance at also showing you that I, too, know the right way to calculate it. Would you like to see the long version without the squaring?


I see people enjoy pouncing. 
I see the calculation now from the others that have given me a stern lecture. I will fade into the hedges now.


----------



## justonemore (Sep 27, 2021)

Great news. But first I want my 16mm


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 27, 2021)

justonemore said:


> Great news. But first I want my 16mm


Something tells me that after the 16mm you'll want justonemore.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2021)

sanj said:


> I am reacting to the post here.


Regardless of what you were reacting to, the statement you made, that Canon _would want to _have a share in the crop sensor mirrorless cameras, is illogical. Canon _already does have _a share in the crop MILC market. A very large one.


----------



## Dreysi (Sep 27, 2021)

With 10bit 422 and Clog 3 would be my dream B cam for interviews for me.


----------



## sanj (Sep 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Regardless of what you were reacting to, the statement you made, that Canon _would want to _have a share in the crop sensor mirrorless cameras, is illogical. Canon _already does have _a share in the crop MILC market. A very large one.


Fantastic. Thanks for the correction. I needed it. Now I am a better person.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2021)

Franklyok said:


> Yeah, I bet onlyfans porn industry is buying them.
> 
> In 10 - 15 years these 3.7 million units will end up on African soil and cause environmental shit. You, Sir, end up buying air filters , water filters and what not filters have you. Luckily there is component shortages. God sent issue. I hope it gives time to do more responsible and thoughtful decisions in order to avoid environmental disaster.
> 
> Btw my 5D3 still kicks ass, and feel bad about mindless buying.


Does your 5DIII take nice pictures of boxes for soap?


----------



## Talys (Sep 27, 2021)

The real question for me is price. I've always been a fan of the xxD and the Rebel bodies, more so than the M series, because of the software. At the right price (for example, if they could have something in the price range of a high end Rebel, I'd get one just for another body.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 27, 2021)

tbgtomcom said:


> I see people enjoy pouncing.
> I see the calculation now from the others that have given me a stern lecture. I will fade into the hedges now.


I kind of feel bad for starting the corrections. However, I did enjoy how convoluted many of the "corrections" were. It seems many on this forum can't resist a complex answer when a simple one (XXMP x 1.6 x 1.6) would do.


----------



## HAWKS61 (Sep 27, 2021)

JustUs7 said:


> Because if we keep saying the same thing long enough, eventually we’ll be right. Then, we get to say, “I told you so!” Which is the real goal in all these proclamations.


Love Ef-m but I agree it’s dead in the water. No lenses since I can’t remember when, last body was basically I minor update possibly software driven and complete silence from Canon on anything to do with EF-m. The current lens are ok but they are not good enough quality to resolve the resolution on the M6 mk 2, with the exception of the 32mm 1.4 and maybe the 28mm Macro. It also needed a lighter long lens 70-300 or 100-400 and some more interesting primes. Otherwise you adapt lenses and it makes it more front heavy and bulky. 

in any case I can no longer recommend EF-m to anyone, a real shame.


----------



## Robin 58 (Sep 27, 2021)

Haven't Canon said they won't be launching any RF-S lenses though? If so, what RF lens will give a superwide angle on an APS-C R?


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Sep 27, 2021)

Robin 58 said:


> Haven't Canon said they won't be launching any RF-S lenses though? If so, what RF lens will give a superwide angle on an APS-C R?



Canon has never said anything about RF-S lenses or crop cameras. But the rumor-mill has suggested crop camera bodies but without dedicated crop lenses.


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 27, 2021)

HAWKS61 said:


> Love Ef-m but I agree it’s dead in the water. No lenses since I can’t remember when, last body was basically I minor update possibly software driven and complete silence from Canon on anything to do with EF-m. The current lens are ok but they are not good enough quality to resolve the resolution on the M6 mk 2, with the exception of the 32mm 1.4 and maybe the 28mm Macro. It also needed a lighter long lens 70-300 or 100-400 and some more interesting primes. Otherwise you adapt lenses and it makes it more front heavy and bulky.
> 
> in any case I can no longer recommend EF-m to anyone, a real shame.


It is a shame, because if you know anyone looking for a really compact system with excellent image quality, then the M system is still (in my opinion) by far the best. The lenses are very good quality for the price. Aside from a big telephoto zoom, it has all the lenses the target market would ever need. (and,come to think of it, the target market almost certainly does not need a bigger zoom). So, yes, it is a shame that you wouldn't recommend EF-M to someone looking for a small compact system due to a rumor that does nothing to indicate that the M system is "dead in the water."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2021)

HAWKS61 said:


> Love Ef-m but I agree it’s dead in the water. No lenses since I can’t remember when, last body was basically I minor update possibly software driven and complete silence from Canon on anything to do with EF-m.
> 
> in any case I can no longer recommend EF-m to anyone, a real shame.


I can no longer recommend barbed wire to anyone looking to construct a fence. It hasn’t been updated in 150 years, it’s dead in the water.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 27, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> It is a shame, because if you know anyone looking for a really compact system with excellent image quality, then the M system is still (in my opinion) by far the best. The lenses are very good quality for the price. Aside from a big telephoto zoom, it has all the lenses the target market would ever need. (and,come to think of it, the target market almost certainly does not need a bigger zoom). So, yes, it is a shame that you wouldn't recommend EF-M to someone looking for a small compact system due to a rumor that does nothing to indicate that the M system is "dead in the water."



And even if it were "dead in the water" what would that actually mean?

If it would mean "Canon is about to discontinue it," that's one thing. But there's no reason to believe that beyond the fantasies of certain people who seem to resent its very existence for some reason.

But if all it meant were that they're not going to create new lenses for it...that's no reason not to recommend it. It means us gearheads won't see any news about it...but so what? The lenses are just as good now as they were a few years ago.


----------



## HAWKS61 (Sep 27, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> It is a shame, because if you know anyone looking for a really compact system with excellent image quality, then the M system is still (in my opinion) by far the best. The lenses are very good quality for the price. Aside from a big telephoto zoom, it has all the lenses the target market would ever need. (and,come to think of it, the target market almost certainly does not need a bigger zoom). So, yes, it is a shame that you wouldn't recommend EF-M to someone looking for a small compact system due to a rumor that does nothing to indicate that the M system is "dead in the water."


The Silence from Canon is deafening for such a good system and I do love the system but... I also mentioned the lack of decent quality lenses, if you releasing a 32 megapixel camera, M6 Mk2 yet the lenses don't have the quality to resolve, what's the point, go back to 24 megapixel and continue to sell to those that want better then a smartphone, but don't expect the smartphone not to pass you by as they improve sensors, software and zooms. Oh and by the way FUJI is still making quality lenses in the APSC world and seem proud of that. (no I don't use a Fuji). 

For the record I have an R6 and M6 mk2


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Sep 28, 2021)

I gave up waiting for a high-end APS-C R body from Canon some time around the beginning of this year. While I would love to believe this "rumor", the cynical part of me sees this as a familiar pattern for CR to keep the clicks coming during the rumor void following the R3 release. Last week it was a Cinema EOS post, this week it's APS-C.

I've been reading reports of new high-end APS-C bodies from "good sources" here "in development" and "in the wild" and in "discussion internally" and "actively...doing market research" for four years. CR0, CR1, CR2, no matter. Lots of forum posts have come of it, but no cameras!

*IF* this rumor is true, it might not be the high-end "R7" that many of us (including me) are hoping for. It could be a low cost transition body to help migrate M series users into the R ecosystem. Or it could be somewhere in the middle, a kind of "R90D".


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Sep 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The destruction of Earth upon the Sun converting to a red giant is also impending.


Then this thing had better have good white balance control.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Sep 28, 2021)

sanj said:


> Brilliant. Does show that the pundits in this forum are 'not' always right. This must be humbling.
> For me, this will be bought only if it is lighter, smaller with lighter, smaller lenses.



The vast majority of "pundits" you read in internet forums about any topic are just armchair observers who read the same information as you and I from those same internet forums.

Anybody who's really privy to what's going on inside Canon won't say anything because that's insider information. And anybody who independently analyzes this market professionally won't say anything because their analysis is proprietary information that clients pay for in order to make big money investment decisions. And by "big money" I mean a lot more than just whether they should buy an R3 or R5 now or wait until next year.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Sep 28, 2021)

hoodlum said:


> Since Canon is starting from scratch with this mount I wonder if they would consider going to 1.5x crop for APS-C.


I don't believe they started completely from scratch. My guess is that they started with the EF mount so that existing EF lenses can work at full performance with a relatively inexpensive physical adapter. For native RF lenses, they added extra pins to allow faster data transfer, new features, and higher power.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Sep 28, 2021)

tbgtomcom said:


> Sounds like a potential mirrorless version of the 90D. Could be interesting for wildlife. At 30mp it would be like cropping the R5.


uhhhh...that's the M6 MkII.

I'd be surprised if someone hasn't posted this already.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 28, 2021)

Juangrande said:


> Unless they also make smaller RFS lenses I just don’t understand the appeal of a smaller sensor but FF lenses. Your not gaining anything, but losing IQ. You can always crop FF for more lens reach. I get that some people want a smaller compact kit for travel or convenience for casual shooting but wasn’t there a statement that Canon wasn’t going to make any RFS glass? Or has that changed again? I guess you could adapt EFS glass. They must be planning on smaller lenses for the system otherwise I see no advantage.



Cheaper sensors on a cheaper body makes a cheaper camera to use on the cheaper lenses.
You gain "cheaper" which more people can afford.
Pretty much one of the main reasons the APS-C was created: it is "cheaper".
Cheaper will open it up to a market they are not tapping yet with the R.
I would imagine that is the advantage.

The PC term wouldn't be "cheaper" it would be "affordable".


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Sep 28, 2021)

reefroamer said:


> I can imagine a high-end (R6-level) Canon body with an APSC sensor. What I have much more difficulty imagining is Canon RF-S lenses to address ultra-wide angle needs. It seems, at least on this forum, nearly all the clamoring for a crop sensor R body comes the crowd demanding extra reach for bird and long-distance wildlife photography. I never see posts about the urgent need for a crop R body to shoot wide angle. Almost all the appeal seems to be at the long telephoto end. Nevertheless, the recently announced RF 16/2.8 may prove decent-enough for most shooters to cover the wide end on a crop sensor R body used mainly for telephoto reach.


I agree that there's no need to get hung up on the idea of a vast range of "RF-S" lenses.

I know I've said this before, so apologies for repeating myself, but I think an easy path for Canon to take would be to make RF versions of the existing EF-M 11-22 and 15-45 that only provide a cropped image circle. If you want to use them on an FF body, have at it, but it will automatically go into crop mode. If you need something faster or longer for the APS-C body, pony up for a full frame lens.


----------



## BBarn (Sep 28, 2021)

A year is too far off, especially unofficially. Not wasting any time contemplating. If I want a mirrorless ASP-C, there are other options available now. Pretty much a useless rumor.


----------



## AJ (Sep 28, 2021)

Yes there have been rumors of APSC cameras off and on. I think what sets this one apart is that it has timing. I will still have to wait another year.... groan...


----------



## Paul Nicol (Sep 28, 2021)

I waited for the R7 but it did not materialize so I bought an R6. Best camera, overall, that I have ever used but I do miss the reach of the 7Dm2. I want both so this is welcome news... that is if it actually happens. Oh yeah a little more speed on the EVF would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 28, 2021)

hoodlum said:


> Since Canon is starting from scratch with this mount I wonder if they would consider going to 1.5x crop for APS-C.


Not if they want adapted EF-S lenses to fully cover the sensor. Remember that they are for the smaller 1.6x sensor


----------



## Jamesraj (Sep 28, 2021)

Not one but 2 cameras have been registered


----------



## vjlex (Sep 28, 2021)

Sounds good to me. Even if this one is a regular-sized R body, it somehow gives me hope that we will eventually get an RP or even M-sized APS-C body.


----------



## KrisK (Sep 28, 2021)

Whither the Rebel? Is there a market for, or for Canon to economically produce a competent EVF version of those boxed kits that stack up at Costco each holiday?

Hopefully they won't dumb it down with a crappy EVF, like the small and (so I've heard) non-pentaprisms in the current Rebel lineup.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 28, 2021)

Assuming that the rumour is correct(!), where in the product line would a R7 fit in?

The birding etc community currently using 7Dii want: eye-AF, build quality, >8fps (14fps M6ii), dual card which will put it at least at the R6 level so around USD2500. The cost of the R6 full frame sensor vs a BSI APS-C sensor could potentially be approximately the same cost (newer technology vs larger wafer size). Would it compete against the R6 ie more megapixels?
$6500 1DXiii
$6000 R3
$3900 R5
$2500 R6
$1500 R
$1200 90D
$1000 RP
<$1000 rumoured low end FF body. Likely without EVF a la Sigma fp style

12 months out is a long time for a CR2 rumour especially as there was the same rumour last year for end 2021 delivery.


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 28, 2021)

exige24 said:


> That would be an actual amazing camera unlike a recently released camera that show
> 
> 
> Hell no! I love that little bit of extra reach that always accompanies Canon's APS-C cameras


The FOV would be different, but the 'reach' is a function of pixel density. So you could still see a benefit as long as the bump the density up. 

An APSc sensor from Canon is always a 1.6 crop factor - cutting a smaller image out of the center of a 'normal' full frame image. But the number of additional pixels per duck vs the full frame - which determines the apparent image size when viewed at the same (say 300dpi) image scale - will be different based on the pixel density of the sensors you are comparing. 

Good illustrations here:





Mark David | Pixel density in camera sensors


An explanation about how the density of a camera sensor's pixels affect the differences between APS-C and full-frame cameras



www.mdavid.com.au





Not my website, just a link I found.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Sep 28, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Assuming that the rumour is correct(!), where in the product line would a R7 fit in?
> 
> The birding etc community currently using 7Dii want: eye-AF, build quality, >8fps (14fps M6ii), dual card which will put it at least at the R6 level so around USD2500.


Just because Canon prices the R6 at USD$2500, I don't buy the argument that an APS-C body with similar features must naturally be priced there as well.

There is no precedent in the current market for a $2500 USD APS-C body. The most expensive APS-C body I am aware of is the Fujifilm X-Pro3 ($1800, without the dura finish), but I think the $1700 X-T4 is a better option for 7Dii sports/action/wildlife shooters looking to move to mirrorless, that or the $1400 Sony a6600 (prices in USD at B&H as of this date).

All three of these bodies check the boxes for the standard high-end features: Magnesium alloy construction, weather/dust resistance, fast AF, face/eye AF, animal eye AF (Sony, not sure about Fuji), IBIS, 200K (Sony) or 300K (Fuji) shutter rating, 4K video (no time limit on Sony, not sure about Fuji), and a large image buffer. The two Fuji's also have dual SD card slots.

If Canon does make an "R7" with similar specs, they very likely will price it well north of $2K. That's their prerogative, and I'm sure there will be many compelling reasons why people will be willing to pay that much. I'm not judging, in fact I might even be one of them. But that price and that feature set do not inherently have to go hand in hand with one another.


----------



## Otara (Sep 28, 2021)

I dont see Canon releasing lots of F7.1, F8 lenses and the like as all that compatible with APS-C bodies coming too.

Not impossible, but definitely lots of reason to have a few buckets of salt. Id buy one if it came, but not going to lose sleep over it.


----------



## dirtyvu (Sep 28, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> A BSI sensor doesn't do a whole lot for IQ as we see from the Nikon Z5 vs Z6, but maybe we'll get something more out of it. A stacked BSI sensor as a 7D mirrorless replacement on the other hand would be very interesting and possibly under £3000.


yeah, but that's a Sony BSI...

j/k Sony fanboys... it's still a good sensor...


----------



## unfocused (Sep 28, 2021)

I can't express how much I'm looking forward to endless discussions of crop sensor reach over the next year. Plus, I'm hoping there will be a few hundred forum posts dedicated to equivalence.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 28, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Assuming that the rumour is correct(!), where in the product line would a R7 fit in?
> 
> The birding etc community currently using 7Dii want: eye-AF, build quality, >8fps (14fps M6ii), dual card which will put it at least at the R6 level so around USD2500. The cost of the R6 full frame sensor vs a BSI APS-C sensor could potentially be approximately the same cost (newer technology vs larger wafer size). Would it compete against the R6 ie more megapixels?
> $6500 1DXiii
> ...


I get the feeling that those who really, really want a crop-sensor body for birding and wildlife would be willing to spend as much or even a little more than an R6. That's actually where the 7D was slotted, a little above the 6D.


----------



## vignes (Sep 28, 2021)

ericblenman said:


> I wonder how they will approach lenses going forward.


that's what I'm thinking. I don't see value. users can now crop to get APSC format. Maybe smaller lens would be interesting but Canon has to focus on getting more RF FF lens out. Sony+Sigma+Tamron are producing good E mount lenses at a very fast pace.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 28, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Just because Canon prices the R6 at USD$2500, I don't buy the argument that an APS-C body with similar features must naturally be priced there as well.
> 
> There is no precedent in the current market for a $2500 USD APS-C body. The most expensive APS-C body I am aware of is the Fujifilm X-Pro3 ($1800, without the dura finish), but I think the $1700 X-T4 is a better option for 7Dii sports/action/wildlife shooters looking to move to mirrorless, that or the $1400 Sony a6600 (prices in USD at B&H as of this date).
> 
> ...


The only real outlier for Canon is the M6ii with speed and pixel density in a M body. I suspect that a cheaper but similar body with that sensor would sell well.
Canon will price within their product portfolio and they haven't really tried to match Sony or Nikon with equivalent models let alone Fuji.
A new sensor is a different story.
A R7 with similar features to R6 but faster rolling shutter, and a higher pixel BSI density would cannibalise their R6 if it was priced lower than the R6.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I get the feeling that those who really, really want a crop-sensor body for birding and wildlife would be willing to spend as much or even a little more than an R6. That's actually where the 7D was slotted, a little above the 6D.


For the record, the 7D launched at $1699 (2009), and the 6D launched at $2099 (2012). The 7DII launched at $1799 (2014), and the 6DII launched at $1999 (2017).

So the 6D was slotted $400 above the 7D, and the 6DII was slotted $200 above the 7DII.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 28, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I get the feeling that those who really, really want a crop-sensor body for birding and wildlife would be willing to spend as much or even a little more than an R6. That's actually where the 7D was slotted, a little above the 6D.


But a 6Dii is USD1400 vs $2500 for R6. There may be a re-jigging of the product line with EOS R and RP replacements but a R7 with similar specs to R6 will be a problem for them in product differentiation.
In a cheaper body than R6, 12fps, single card might be an option or it will need to be >USD2500 to justify the higher megapixel count. I know that mp is not everything but as the R5 and R3 have shown that the key feature to Canon is the megapixel count!


----------



## Jethro (Sep 28, 2021)

It might depend on the overall build quality - I recall that the 7D was in the bullet-proof semi-pro category, and the 7DII somewhat less than that. But I agree it will probably come back to the sensor - if that is a new design then it is going to represent a premium component, knocking up the price. And, like others, I wonder how many they will actually sell - I can't see there being a mass-market (even in R6 terms), so more likely it will aim at specialist niches, meaning that the necessary revenue (and profit) would have to be recouped over a lesser volume of sales. And of course there is the expected low-price (<$1000) R series FF that is rumoured for early 2022 - that would presumably entice a certain number more of potential APSC buyers into entry level FF?


----------



## camerone (Sep 28, 2021)

I wonder what this means for EF-M. It seems pretty clear to me that the M system was never a priority for Canon. I (and I'm sure most others) would prefer Canon dive fully into RF for both full-frame and mirrorless, but I could see them keeping EF-M around as a lower-end ILC system with smaller bodies (partially thanks to the smaller lens mount) and bottoming out the RF APS-C bodies at about a 90D-equivalent level, perhaps offering both a 90D-esque (or even 77D-esque) general APS-C body and a sports-/wildlife-oriented "mirrorless 7D3". 

Looking at it from Canon's perspective, keeping both systems would allow them to sell more gear overall (making you upgrade body and lenses together to get to the next "level"), but they'd run the risk of EF-M customers who are looking to upgrade to a nicer kit simply moving to a different brand while they're at it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2021)

camerone said:


> I (and I'm sure most others) would prefer Canon dive fully into RF for both full-frame and mirrorless,


Best to speak for just yourself. About 90% of ILC sales are APS-C, and about 43% of ILC sales are DSLRs. So clearly ‘most others’ don’t share your preference, at least based on what is actually being bought.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 28, 2021)

camerone said:


> I wonder what this means for EF-M. It seems pretty clear to me that the M system was never a priority for Canon. I (and I'm sure most others) would prefer Canon dive fully into RF for both full-frame and mirrorless, but I could see them keeping EF-M around as a lower-end ILC system with smaller bodies (partially thanks to the smaller lens mount) and bottoming out the RF APS-C bodies at about a 90D-equivalent level, perhaps offering both a 90D-esque (or even 77D-esque) general APS-C body and a sports-/wildlife-oriented "mirrorless 7D3".
> 
> Looking at it from Canon's perspective, keeping both systems would allow them to sell more gear overall (making you upgrade body and lenses together to get to the next "level"), but they'd run the risk of EF-M customers who are looking to upgrade to a nicer kit simply moving to a different brand while they're at it.


I don't agree. Canon may not be spending R&D money/resources into the EF-M mount now but they certainly did invest a lot in it between 2012-2019. It has been 2 years since a new release but the EF-m is a cashcow for Canon. 

There is no upgrade path to RF. Those wanting to upgrade to full frame have many choices. They may stick to Canon if there are bridge type cameras eg a sub USD1000 RF body

A full frame sub USDk RF body means easy upgrade to expensive RF lenses or current adapted EF lenses and eventually higher end bodies. I suspect that it won't have an EVF and will operate more like a phone UI (M200/Sigma fp style). It would be the pathway for phone photographers to better photography including optical bokeh (not computational).

If the sub USD1k body is APS-C then it won't be a replacement for 7D or 90D. Being 20% cheaper than the 90D would normally means less features.


----------



## maulanawale (Sep 28, 2021)

tbgtomcom said:


> Apologies for my math error.


As a bird enthusiast, I'd class someone acknowledging a mistake publicly and backtracking as a "Rara Avis". Kudos to you!
Not so rare though is the absurd number of people that won't read the whole thread to see if someone already provided a correct answer and keep on saying the same thing over and over again.
I guess the temptation of being right in a forum is too big for some. . .


----------



## Bahrd (Sep 28, 2021)

AustrianGeek said:


> APS-H would make more sense (and skip on smaller image circle lenses from scratch on). The slight crop would give a nice little magnification + faster readout speeds + cheaper to build sensors / cameras (just a cheaper high speed lineup of bodies like the 90D etc). At least that would make more sense than introducing APS-C again on RF mount. ^^


That's an unacceptable scenario for a local M-killers gang...


----------



## Chig (Sep 28, 2021)

tbgtomcom said:


> 30mp x 1.5 = 45. Full frame sensor is 36x24. APS-C is typically 22x15.


No , it works on area to get equivalent pixel density and Canon's aps-c crop is 1.6x
1.6x1.6=2.56
30mp x 2.56=76.8 
Unfocused was correct


----------



## SnowMiku (Sep 28, 2021)

I use APS-C for everything and for what I do it's all I need, I've got the Canon EF-S 10-22mm and the Samyang 16mm f/2 for astro photography, the Canon EF-S 18-200mm for walking around and the EF 70-300mm L for birding and butterflies. For someone doing this as a hobby like myself APS-C bodies and wide angle lenses are more cost effective then Full Frame.

For those that are saying the R5 can crop to 17MP yes that's good if you can afford it but lots of people can't afford or are not willing to pay for it when they could get an APS-C that's cheaper and the ability to use smaller lenses with the same or similar equivalent focal length. I personally prefer a 90D and 70-300mm L over the R6 and a 100-500mm L based on the significant price difference, and with APS-C that 300mm is equivalent to 480mm.


----------



## Chig (Sep 28, 2021)

sanj said:


> My sentiments exactly.





Juangrande said:


> Unless they also make smaller RFS lenses I just don’t understand the appeal of a smaller sensor but FF lenses. Your not gaining anything, but losing IQ. You can always crop FF for more lens reach. I get that some people want a smaller compact kit for travel or convenience for casual shooting but wasn’t there a statement that Canon wasn’t going to make any RFS glass? Or has that changed again? I guess you could adapt EFS glass. They must be planning on smaller lenses for the system otherwise I see no advantage.


You gain higher pixel density , if this is 30mp that's nearly double the R5 cropped 17mp.


----------



## Chig (Sep 28, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Assuming that the rumour is correct(!), where in the product line would a R7 fit in?
> 
> The birding etc community currently using 7Dii want: eye-AF, build quality, >8fps (14fps M6ii), dual card which will put it at least at the R6 level so around USD2500. The cost of the R6 full frame sensor vs a BSI APS-C sensor could potentially be approximately the same cost (newer technology vs larger wafer size). Would it compete against the R6 ie more megapixels?
> $6500 1DXiii
> ...


I'd be happy to pay the same price as an R6 for an APS-C version especially if it's new BSI sensor (hopefully stacked)


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 28, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> [..] The 7D2 still out-reaches even the R5, [..]


Genuine question: Is that still true when it comes to actual detail, with the huge difference in AA filters and sensor tech? A 20MP 1DX3 out resolved my 26MP RP when it came to actual detail, especially after ISO1600. And that's 6MP apart instead of the 3MP between R5-crop and 7D2.


----------



## petitBogueBogue (Sep 28, 2021)

Devil's advocate::
Will EF-M mount system be dead? Now after the launching of the RF-mount APS-C camera, a series of RF-S series lenses will certainly be developed. Then Cannon can very well launch a RF-S to EF-M mount adapter to keep the EF-M system alive. Is there such a possibility?
What do you think? ^^


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 28, 2021)

Chig said:


> I'd be happy to pay the same price as an R6 for an APS-C version especially if it's new BSI sensor (hopefully stacked)


I'd agree that there will be a niche of people prepared to pay for R7 that is a R6 + APS-C sensor but how would Canon market it and not cannibalise R6 sales especially with the headline (expected) 30mp?

For APS-C I see 2 market niches for a new sensor:
1. $3k R7 with 30mp for 7D replacement (inbetween R6 and R5 like the 7D was)
2. $1k R7 with ~20-24mp for 90D replacement with no EVF

For #1, wide angle lenses aren't a priority as "reach"/pixel density seems to be the key requirement
For #2, there will need to be cheap/small wide angle/kit lenses released


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 28, 2021)

petitBogueBogue said:


> Devil's advocate::
> Will EF-M mount system be dead? Now after the launching of the RF-mount APS-C camera, a series of RF-S series lenses will certainly be developed. Then Cannon can very well launch a RF-S to EF-M mount adapter to keep the ED-M system alive. Is there such a possibility?
> What do you think? ^^


APS-C RF will not kill EF-M. 2 completely different markets for size/price/quality. EF-M will tick along quite nicely for Canon for the foreseeable future without substantial new models.

I don't agree that "a series of RF-S series lenses will certainly be developed"
If the R7 is a high end model then cheap/wide angle lenses aren't essential. The RF lens roadmap shows a RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM which would give ~30mm FF equivalent at the wide end for a crop sensor.

If a low end model R7 is released then there will need to be 1-2 kit/zoom lenses specific for APS-C RF mount eg 10-22mm and maybe a 15-85mm.

There isn't a RF-S mount. It is RF mount with potentially a APS-C sensor in it. There isn't an adapter from EF-M to RF mount due to the flange distance. I can't imagine one for any APS-C lens for RF mount.


----------



## caffetin (Sep 28, 2021)

Hmm,new apsc-r mount and rf 28-70mm?


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 28, 2021)

Juangrande said:


> Unless they also make smaller RFS lenses I just don’t understand the appeal of a smaller sensor but FF lenses. Your not gaining anything, but losing IQ. You can always crop FF for more lens reach.


The advantage could be in higher pixel density. Canon and Nikon made APS-C sensors with higher pixel density than FF sensors for a very long time.


----------



## Traveler (Sep 28, 2021)

vignes said:


> that's what I'm thinking. I don't see value. users can now crop to get APSC format. Maybe smaller lens would be interesting but Canon has to focus on getting more RF FF lens out. Sony+Sigma+Tamron are producing good E mount lenses at a very fast pace.


I don’t like the idea of APSC R system but it makes some sense. You got ~2.5 times more reach (for birders, who crop even on 800mm) and second you get cheaper fast camera without cannibalizing high end sports camera


----------



## Traveler (Sep 28, 2021)

I still hope for R mark II. The R6 is too big and bulky and doesn’t have top LCD. R5 is way too expensive. 
The original R is the sexiest camera ever made (to me). Just give it a bit faster processor.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 28, 2021)

dirtyvu said:


> yeah, but that's a Sony BSI...
> 
> j/k Sony fanboys... it's still a good sensor...



It’s not just Sony BSI. BSI is better by a small percentage, but not as much of an improvement as we’ve see. In the past from new processors.


----------



## MoonMadness (Sep 28, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> I love Canon. There's a shortage of chips and parts etc, but they somehow manage to find the raw materials to make a camera no one was looking for, while *some *of us are waiting for a new budget FF camera that will be everything that the RP wasn't.


Why would Canon want to put priority in a camera that only "some" are waiting to buy?

Besides, they already have ONE budget FF (RP) camera. As well as at most ONLY one RF in each price/category range and NO crop RF body. 

It's become a ME ME ME and ME First day of age


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 28, 2021)

hoodlum said:


> Since Canon is starting from scratch with this mount I wonder if they would consider going to 1.5x crop for APS-C.



Not starting from scratch because old EFS lenses will be adaptable so bigger sensor could cause some extra vignetting maybe.


----------



## sanj (Sep 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Best to speak for just yourself. About 90% of ILC sales are APS-C, and about 43% of ILC sales are DSLRs. So clearly ‘most others’ don’t share your preference, at least based on what is actually being bought.


I am not most, but I agree with Camrone.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I can no longer recommend barbed wire to anyone looking to construct a fence. It hasn’t been updated in 150 years, it’s dead in the water.


Hmm, this would be an argument from false equivalence, since barbwire does not get additional accessories to increase functionality on a periodic basis, whereas interchangeable lens cameras get new lenses. This wouldn't be a logically fallacious argument if you were making the comparison to a fixed lens camera, or if barbwire came with the option of a range of water-resistant toxins to coat the tips with!  Sorry, couldn't resist!


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 28, 2021)

Traveler said:


> I don’t like the idea of APSC R system but it makes some sense. You got ~2.5 times more reach [..]


You only get more 'reach' if the pixel size is smaller on the APS-C. If Canon would reuse the R3 sensor technology, you'd get a 10MP APS-C sensor and no extra reach compared to the R3 and R5.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 28, 2021)

ericblenman said:


> I wonder how they will approach lenses going forward.


Assuming the rumor is true and Canon really do produce a BSI APS-C EOS R camera, they possibly might only need to produce a kit lens that covers something close to the traditional range of 18-55mm (28.8-88mm full frame equivalent), and perhaps something a bit wider, like the old 10-18mm EF-S lens.

I would speculate that the range of lower end budget build lenses released or coming soon would cover most requirements.

RF 16mm f/2.8 = 25.6mm on APSC
RF 35mm F/1.8 = 56mm on APSC
RF 50mm f/1.8 = 80mm on APSC
RF 85mm f/2 = 136mm on APSC
RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 = 160-640mm on APSC
RF 600mm f/11 = 960mm on APSC
RF 800mm f/11 = 1,280mm on APSC
These lenses would provide equivalents to the popular sizes of 24mm, 50mm, 85mm and 135mm in prime lenses on a crop sensor body, and quite a bit of the long telephoto range from 160-1,280mm with the rest of the primes and zooms.

It wouldn't be the first time that APSC users have used full frame budget Canon lenses, the legendary nifty-fifty EF 50m f/1.8 STM was full frame glass after all, Canon never produced a 50mm EF-S lens, the closest was the 60mm EF-S Macro,

This is a purely speculative minimalist option that Canon may take, or they might not and produce a swag of budget crop lenses. It depends on what the market wants / what will sell, or what the sales strategy is, neither of which we know anything about.


----------



## tbgtomcom (Sep 28, 2021)

josephandrews222 said:


> uhhhh...that's the M6 MkII.
> 
> I'd be surprised if someone hasn't posted this already.


Yes, I realize there's an M6-2, I was referring to an RF mount equivalent. I see great reviews for the M6-2 but you don't get the same form factor or battery as the R models, and I'd guestimate that the ef-m mount is in it's winter years. My hope is to see it eventually lead to an RF rebel camera. The more RF cameras, the more chance for new lens options to come into play.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 28, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> It wouldn't be the first time that APSC users have used full frame budget Canon lenses, the legendary nifty-fifty EF 500m f/1.8 STM ...


I'd love to see a 500m f/1.8 lens. A bit heavy for me though. And I wonder what the mfd of a 500m lens would be? Perfect for a bird 1km away, I guess.


----------



## bergstrom (Sep 28, 2021)

MoonMadness said:


> Why would Canon want to put priority in a camera that only "some" are waiting to buy?
> 
> Besides, they already have ONE budget FF (RP) camera. As well as at most ONLY one RF in each price/category range and NO crop RF body.
> 
> It's become a ME ME ME and ME First day of age



an FF with worst battery ever. THIS new one SHOULD be what the RP SHOULD have been.


----------



## Joaquim (Sep 28, 2021)

Aah, finally something I want to hear. Eagerly awaiting the R7 and the XH2. And then I will look forward to Sigma finally making mirrorless versions of the 1.8 twins. That 50-100 so needs a proper non focus breathing update and a few pounds of weight lost too.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Sep 28, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> A R7 with similar features to R6 but faster rolling shutter, and a higher pixel BSI density would cannibalise their R6 if it was priced lower than the R6.


I respectfully disagree. Maybe I'm biased from spending too much time in internet photography forums, but at least around here, it seems that most people arguing for a high-end APS-C body want that sensor size and pixel density for specific reasons. People who buy FF bodies have different needs and want the features of a FF sensor. The people who don't care about sensor/pixel size either way are likely to be long-time M users who are looking to upgrade, and they'll be equally turned off by an APS-C body at $2000 as an R6 at $2600. That's a market for the low-cost $800 R body, whether that's APS-C or FF.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I'd love to see a 500m f/1.8 lens. A bit heavy for me though. And I wonder what the mfd of a 500m lens would be? Perfect for a bird 1km away, I guess.


Thanks Alan, typo corrected, but it made for some humour! With a lens of those specifications, you'll never hear another birder even complain about high ISO noisy images in low light. Heck, you can probably photograph owls under moonlight with one of those at ISO 200!


----------



## maulanawale (Sep 28, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Thanks Alan, typo corrected, but it made for some humour! With a lens of those specifications, you'll never hear another birder even complain about high ISO noisy images in low light. Heck, you can probably photograph owls under moonlight with one of those at ISO 200!


It'd be amazing for BIF's, bats in flight


----------



## BBarn (Sep 28, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> an FF with worst battery ever. THIS new one SHOULD be what the RP SHOULD have been.


Love my RP. I guess it depends on use profile, but battery life has been a non-issue for me. And unless a crop body system is signifantly smaller than the FF RP (doubtful given the size of the RP mount), I would have zero interest.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 28, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> I respectfully disagree. Maybe I'm biased from spending too much time in internet photography forums, but at least around here, it seems that most people arguing for a high-end APS-C body want that sensor size and pixel density for specific reasons. People who buy FF bodies have different needs and want the features of a FF sensor. The people who don't care about sensor/pixel size either way are likely to be long-time M users who are looking to upgrade, and they'll be equally turned off by an APS-C body at $2000 as an R6 at $2600. That's a market for the low-cost $800 R body, whether that's APS-C or FF.


Good point, many beginner photographers buy Rebel crop sensor DSLRs and M-series mirrorless, and I'm guessing there's way more of them than specialised 7D photographers. They definitely will not pay R6 prices, and most couldn't care about specs and features beyond what they need for their purpose. The M50 II is really big with the budget vlogger crowd for example because it's only USD $700 with a kit lens or $900 for a full vlogging kit.

Canon uses APSC sensors in both low-end budget camera bodies, midrange crop sensor bodies such as the 80D and 90D, as well as specialist high-end bodies such as the 7D series. Were talking about at least THREE market sectors here!

This raises the question, if there is a new RF mount APSC camera, which portion of the market will it cater to, and could there be more than one camera body to intentionally segment the market and offer progressively higher specs and build quality?

Lots of unanswered questions to intentionally get the market hyped up before product release. It appears to work very well!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 28, 2021)

maulanawale said:


> It'd be amazing for BIF's, bats in flight


Awesome comment!


----------



## Foxdude (Sep 28, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> It is a shame, because if you know anyone looking for a really compact system with excellent image quality, then the M system is still (in my opinion) by far the best. The lenses are very good quality for the price. Aside from a big telephoto zoom, it has all the lenses the target market would ever need. (and,come to think of it, the target market almost certainly does not need a bigger zoom). So, yes, it is a shame that you wouldn't recommend EF-M to someone looking for a small compact system due to a rumor that does nothing to indicate that the M system is "dead in the water."


You read my mind.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 28, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> I use APS-C for everything and for what I do it's all I need, I've got the Canon EF-S 10-22mm and the Samyang 16mm f/2 for astro photography, the Canon EF-S 18-200mm for walking around and the EF 70-300mm L for birding and butterflies. For someone doing this as a hobby like myself APS-C bodies and wide angle lenses are more cost effective then Full Frame.
> 
> For those that are saying the R5 can crop to 17MP yes that's good if you can afford it but lots of people can't afford or are not willing to pay for it when they could get an APS-C that's cheaper and the ability to use smaller lenses with the same or similar equivalent focal length. I personally prefer a 90D and 70-300mm L over the R6 and a 100-500mm L based on the significant price difference, and with APS-C that 300mm is equivalent to 480mm.


Because of the much higher pixel density of the 90D over the R6, 300mm on the 90D could be up to 600mm equivalent on the R6 in terms of resolution or reach, depending on circumstances, although 480mm in terms of field of view.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Canon uses APSC sensors in both low-end budget camera bodies, midrange crop sensor bodies such as the 80D and 90D, as well as specialist high-end bodies such as the 7D series. Were talking about at least THREE market sectors here!



They had three sectors. The 7-series launched in 2009 and was updated only once, in 2014. To me, that and the relatively bigger bump from the 80D to the 90D suggests that Canon really only saw two viable sectors there.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> viabkesectors there.


What's a viabkesector?


----------



## AlanF (Sep 28, 2021)

Chig said:


> You gain higher pixel density , if this is 30mp that's nearly double the R5 cropped 17mp.


Pixel density is the number of pixels per length, not area: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density; https://www.definitions.net/definition/pixel+density etc etc. A 30 Mpx APS-C sensor has only a 33% greater pixel density than a 17 Mpx sensor. It's not a pedantic distinction, it is crucial for telling you how much longer a telephoto lens you need to get similar reach (resolution). If the pixel density was double, you would need a 600mm lens on the 17 Mpx sensor to give about the same resolution as a 300mm on the 30 Mpx, but with a 33% difference only an approximately 400mm lens on the 17 Mpx is needed.


----------



## jvillain (Sep 28, 2021)

sanj said:


> This gentleman is ahead of the times! :-|


I am surprised Sony Northrop hasn't pushed out a video about all the things wrong with the new cameras yet.


----------



## reefroamer (Sep 28, 2021)

Robin 58 said:


> Haven't Canon said they won't be launching any RF-S lenses though? If so, what RF lens will give a superwide angle on an APS-C R?


I’m probably missing something obvious with this: Wouldn’t an EF-S 10-22, with an EF-RF lens adapter, work just as effectively on a crop-sensor R body as it does, without adapter, on the crop-sensor EF bodies (ie, 7D, 90D, Rebel Bodies)? With the adapter, I can fit EF-S lenses to my R6, and get a cropped image. On a crop-sensor R body, would the EF-S lens plus adapter actually fill the (smaller) sensor? If so, users could use existing EF-S lenses for ultra-wide needs on a crop R body. No? The EF-S lenses would fit the full-frame EF Mount bodies due to mechanical/flange limitations, but this would not be the case with adapter on the R Mount. Where am I wrong here?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2021)

reefroamer said:


> I’m probably missing something obvious with this: Wouldn’t an EF-S 10-22, with an EF-RF lens adapter, work just as effectively on a crop-sensor R body as it does, without adapter, on the crop-sensor EF bodies (ie, 7D, 90D, Rebel Bodies)? With the adapter, I can fit EF-S lenses to my R6, and get a cropped image. On a crop-sensor R body, would the EF-S lens plus adapter actually fill the (smaller) sensor? If so, users could use existing EF-S lenses for ultra-wide needs on a crop R body. No? The EF-S lenses would fit the full-frame EF Mount bodies due to mechanical/flange limitations, but this would not be the case with adapter on the R Mount. Where am I wrong here?


You’re correct, I suspect the argument is that there should be native lenses for RF. if Canon does release and APS-C RF body, no doubt they will want to sell lenses alongside of it. And charge a premium even at the low end for those who want the native mount.

The EF 50/1.8 costs $125, the RF 50/1.8 costs $200.

Particularly if the camera is aimed at the entry level (APS-C usually being cheaper), people upgrading from an M may not want to adapt EF/-S lenses, especially if they have to buy those lenses new and also the adapter.


----------



## Traveler (Sep 28, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> You only get more 'reach' if the pixel size is smaller on the APS-C. If Canon would reuse the R3 sensor technology, you'd get a 10MP APS-C sensor and no extra reach compared to the R3 and R5.


Why would they do that? I guess they’ll develop a new higher density APSC sensor (as they always did) and perhaps reuse it in the next iterations of M body and perhaps a 90D successor if there is still demand for APSC DSLR.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 28, 2021)

SteveC said:


> And even if it were "dead in the water" what would that actually mean?


It would mean the vessel needs to display;
*(i)* two all-round red lights in a vertical line where they can best be seen;
*(ii)* two balls or similar shapes in a vertical line where they can best be seen;


----------



## MoonMadness (Sep 28, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> an FF with worst battery ever. THIS new one SHOULD be what the RP SHOULD have been.


Oh, my bad. Canon should update the RP with an RPm2 ASAP, just because of the battery. And just for you. Wait a minute, you can't buy additional batteries for it without the body? Wait another minute, I thought the M50 battery was the worst battery ever? Same battery for the updated M50m2. Guessing the RPm2 won't change either.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 28, 2021)

"Coming in the second half of 2022"
With all the recent delays, don't expect this before 2023.


----------



## reefroamer (Sep 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> You’re correct, I suspect the argument is that there should be native lenses for RF. if Canon does release and APS-C RF body, no doubt they will want to sell lenses alongside of it. And charge a premium even at the low end for those who want the native mount.
> 
> The EF 50/1.8 costs $125, the RF 50/1.8 costs $200.
> 
> Particularly if the camera is aimed at the entry level (APS-C usually being cheaper), people upgrading from an M may not want to adapt EF/-S lenses, especially if they have to buy those lenses new and also the adapter.


I agree. But, as with the full-frame R models, the adapter, buys Canon some time to flesh out the lens options for any APSC model in the RF Mount. Canon didn’t have any ultrawide EF-S lenses for several years after introducing crop sensor DSLRs, and something like a budget RF 18-45 or 18-55 might suffice at intro for a crop R body.


----------



## Juangrande (Sep 28, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> The advantage could be in higher pixel density. Canon and Nikon made APS-C sensors with higher pixel density than FF sensors for a very long time.


The R5 gas pretty high pixel density too though. Which is why I look forward to the rumored high mp ff body (R5s?), FF and high pixel density for the win! . Saving up for it now.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Sep 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Pixel density is the number of pixels per length, not area: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density; https://www.definitions.net/definition/pixel+density etc etc. A 30 Mpx APS-C sensor has only a 33% greater pixel density than a 17 Mpx sensor. It's not a pedantic distinction, it is crucial for telling you how much longer a telephoto lens you need to get similar reach (resolution). If the pixel density was double, you would need a 600mm lens on the 17 Mpx sensor to give about the same resolution as a 300mm on the 30 Mpx, but with a 33% difference only an approximately 400mm lens on the 17 Mpx is needed.


Density is a vague term that can refer to linear, area, or volume. Volume density isn't really relevant to photographic sensors, but it's the one we experience often in our everyday lives. Remember science class in school: A bowling ball sinks in water because the ball is more dense than the water (which is actually a lazy explanation; the ball sinks because its weight--the influence of gravity on its mass--is greater than that of the water that it displaces. But I digress...)

The crop factor of a sensor is related to its linear dimensions and affects the angle of view. The same lens on a full frame camera will have 1.6x the angle of view as it will on an APS-C camera (that's for Canon. It's 1.5x for Sony, Nikon, Fuji, etc.). Usually this is thought of the opposite way: The same lens on an APS-C camera will give the same FOV as a lens with 1.6x the focal length on a FF camera.

When comparing linear pixel density between sensors, what matters is actually the pixel size, or pitch. The EOS R3 and 80D are both 24 effective MP cameras that produce images 6000 x 4000 pixels. So the pixels on the R3 must be 1.6x wider and 1.6x higher (or 2.65x the area) than pixels on the 80D.

When you use a FF R camera in crop mode, it crops the native images by 1.6x horizontally and by 1.6x vertically. So for the R5, whose maximum image size is 8192x5464, a cropped image is nominally (8192/1.6 = ) 5120 x (5464/1.6 = ) 3415, or approximately 17.48 MP. And the total 45MP of the full-frame R5 has been divided by (1.6)^2, or 2.56.

(I said "nominally" in that previous paragraph because I don't have an R5 and I don't know exactly what size images it produces in crop mode. There may be reasons why it is smaller or larger than this, and I'm confident lots of people will tell me if that's not correct).

The thing about crop factor is that it's solely a property of the sensor. Nothing about the optical properties of the lens changes. A 600mm lens is still a 600mm lens, and it produces the same image regardless of the size of the sensor behind it.

This leads to why many people who photograph small distant objects prefer APS-C. Say you're photographing something small and distant with that 600mm lens I mentioned earlier. And suppose the lens produces an image on the sensor where the small distant object is 1mm wide by 1mm high. That 1mm x 1mm is determined by the object's size, distance, and the 600mm lens. The sensor doesn't change it. What the sensor's "pixel density" affects is how many pixels will be "underneath" the image of that object. If you're shooting with an R3, the image of the object will cover an area of about 167 pixels wide by 167 pixels high on your sensor. If you're instead using the 80D, the smaller pixels (1/1.6x the R3 pixels in both dimensions) mean your 1mm x 1mm object will cover an area of about 1.6x x 1.6x as many pixels, or about 267 wide by 267 high on the APS-C sensor.

I used the R3 and 80D in these examples because they are both 24MP cameras that produce 6000 x 4000 images. The math gets a little more complicated when you compare different size sensors with different MP's. For example, the R5 and the 90D. Then the crop factor still determines the total relative fields of view, but it's less meaningful for determining the number of pixels on your subject because you need to take into account the actual pixel sizes of the two sensors.


----------



## Skux (Sep 28, 2021)

Birding camera boys let's gooooo!!!!


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 28, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> People who buy FF bodies have different needs and want the features of a FF sensor..... That's a market for the low-cost $800 R body, whether that's APS-C or FF.


Traditionally, FF was only for the higher end bodies but with the RP USD200 cheaper than the 90D and only USD100 more than the 80D then you can have full frame within a reasonable price. Full frame is available to almost everyone now. I remember going from a 7D to 5Diii and thinking that it was amazing for low light performance even though the fps was slower.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 29, 2021)

David - [QUOTE="David - Sydney said:


> … I remember going from a 7D to 5Diii and thinking that it was amazing for low light performance…



I agree with the general sentiment of your post, but I would say that the technology has changed a lot since the 5D III. I have found very little difference between the low light performance of the R5 and the 1DxIII and at the same time I have found that the 1Dx III can sustain cropping to a level that comes close to the R5 in all but the most extreme circumstances. 

If an R7 materializes many people may have to eat their words when it comes to the relative performance of full frame and crop sensors.


----------



## petitBogueBogue (Sep 29, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> APS-C RF will not kill EF-M. 2 completely different markets for size/price/quality. EF-M will tick along quite nicely for Canon for the foreseeable future without substantial new models.
> 
> I don't agree that "a series of RF-S series lenses will certainly be developed"
> If the R7 is a high end model then cheap/wide angle lenses aren't essential. The RF lens roadmap shows a RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM which would give ~30mm FF equivalent at the wide end for a crop sensor.
> ...


Thanks David,
So let's wait and see if an aps-c RF lens series will surface or not.
BTW, what do you think about the possibility of an RF-EOS M mount adapter?


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 29, 2021)

unfocused said:


> If an R7 materializes many people may have to eat their words when it comes to the relative performance of full frame and crop sensors.


I think that technology is changing perceptions faster than we think. AI based upscaling being one of those... an extra step but mostly covers any issues with cropped images. The R5/A1 having both speed and high res. The R5's IBIS negating some side effects of high resolution. The video capabilities of the R bodies vs dedicated video rigs.
We can have it all.... at a price  
Where will the R7 fit into the product portfolio? EF-M, xxD/xxxD will continue to need APS-C sensors just because they are volume sellers although the RP/potential sub USD1k body is encroaching into the xxD space. 
If the 7D is replaced and what price Canon would sell it for is the big question for most people in the forum


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 29, 2021)

petitBogueBogue said:


> Thanks David,
> So let's wait and see if an aps-c RF lens series will surface not.
> BTW, what do you think about the possibility of an RF-EOS M mount adapter?


I don't think that it is physically possible for a EF-M -> R mount adapter. There would be a Canon or 3rd party version available if it was.


----------



## JasonL (Sep 29, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> I love Canon. There's a shortage of chips and parts etc, but they somehow manage to find the raw materials to make a camera no one was looking for, while some of us are waiting for a new budget FF camera that will be everything that the RP wasn't.


Some of us 7D2 users that can't afford big whites for wildlife will whole heartedly embrace an R7 with build construction on par with a 7D2.


----------



## maulanawale (Sep 29, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I agree with the general sentiment of your post, but I would say that the technology has changed a lot since the 5D III. I have found very little difference between the low light performance of the R5 and the 1DxIII and at the same time I have found that the 1Dx III can sustain cropping to a level that comes close to the R5 in all but the most extreme circumstances.
> 
> If an R7 materializes many people may have to eat their words when it comes to the relative performance of full frame and crop sensors.


Couldn't agree more.

Specially considering most of the images these days are viewed on a screen and rarely make it to paper.

I'd challenge anyone to check the photos I have in my gallery on this very site and guess the camera used. . . .
Granted the images in terms of artistic quality might suck (blame the human, not the gear ), but I don't think much bad, if anything, can be said in terms of IQ.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 29, 2021)

jvillain said:


> I am surprised Sony Northrop hasn't pushed out a video about all the things wrong with the new cameras yet.


Since there is no perfect camera for all purposes, marketing departments are known to be fallible, and product design involves many compromises between competing properties, it's no surprise that it's possible for cameras to have faults, include bad compromises, or be less than perfect.

I'm confused, what's wrong with pointing these out to allow buyers to make informed decisions?


----------



## myepic (Sep 29, 2021)

mmmm, Maybe the M50 mkiii could be more than a firmware upgrade?


----------



## myepic (Sep 29, 2021)

petitBogueBogue said:


> Thanks David,
> So let's wait and see if an aps-c RF lens series will surface not.
> BTW, what do you think about the possibility of an RF-EOS M mount adapter?


Why not a premium model M50 with this sensor in it?


----------



## AlanF (Sep 29, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Since there is no perfect camera for all purposes, marketing departments are known to be fallible, and product design involves many compromises between competing properties, it's no surprise that it's possible for cameras to have faults, include bad compromises, or be less than perfect.
> 
> I'm confused, what's wrong with pointing these out to allow buyers to make informed decisions?


You are truly confused if you think you can make "Informed" decisions on his comments.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> You are truly confused if you think you can make "Informed" decisions on his comments.


Personally, I'd take most YouTube reviews put out before and right on release date with a grain of salt. Only well after release date, when the shackles are off and they can do real testing, do we get any useful information beyond the specs. The independent reviewers are more reliable as they aren't scared of Canon taking their preview toys away for being bad little reviewers, and creating negative publicity if they're honest.

I don't know of any person who is either 100% right or 100% wrong all the time, so I assess each separate review on its own merits. Some reviewers are better than others at their work, but critical thinking is necessary, as is drawing your own conclusions from the information presented. I judge the facts coming from the person, not the person themselves!


----------



## AlanF (Sep 29, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Personally, I'd take most YouTube reviews put out before and right on release date with a grain of salt. Only well after release date, when the shackles are off and they can do real testing, do we get any useful information beyond the specs. The independent reviewers are more reliable as they aren't scared of Canon taking their preview toys away for being bad little reviewers, and creating negative publicity if they're honest.
> 
> I don't know of any person who is either 100% right or 100% wrong all the time, so I assess each separate review on its own merits. Some reviewers are better than others at their work, but critical thinking is necessary, as is drawing your own conclusions from the information presented. I judge the facts coming from the person, not the person themselves!


I am not addressing this at any particular reviewer or even just reviewers but as a general comment. If you have had experience that the information spread by one person has been reliable in the past and there is accumulated evidence they have the necessary background knowledge and skills, then you take what they say seriously. If your experience is that they are only marginally competent or biased or dishonest, and you think you have sufficient critical ability to try and extract "facts" from what they say, you are welcome so to do. It's your choice. I know what my choice is. I'll post here information that I know from my own direct practical experience or from my knowledge of theory or that I have learned from those who have proved reliable in the past and I respect.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I am not addressing this at any particular reviewer or even just reviewers but as a general comment. If you have had experience that the information spread by one person has been reliable in the past and there is accumulated evidence they have the necessary background knowledge and skills, then you take what they say seriously. If your experience is that they are only marginally competent or biased or dishonest, and you think you have sufficient critical ability to try and extract "facts" from what they say, you are welcome so to do. It's your choice. I know what my choice is. I'll post here information that I know from my own direct practical experience or from my knowledge of theory or that I have learned from those who have proved reliable in the past and I respect.


I get what you're saying now. Agreed, good reputation matters, I find Dustin Abbott and Christopher Frost to be excellent reviewers, they're very consistent, professional and thorough. 

In my experience haven't come across any dishonest reviewers, the marketing departments for the companies do that best, they have no peers! 

Some reviewers can be hit and miss, but even when they get a 'hit', it can still be useful, that's what I was referring to. YouTube reviewers can be a varying mix of information and entertainment, some focus too much on the latter and are 'content-thin', so they might be amusing but not too helpful.

Agreed, the most reliable source of information is shared experience, and that's the whole point of forums when they're functioning in a positive way, people can learn from each other. That's where I've found the most honest opinions and useful information, scouring through forum posts. Once you filter out the background noise of fanboy confirmation bias, there's good information to be had. When forums go toxic, the 'noise' drowns out the 'useful signal' lol!


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 29, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> I get what you're saying now. Agreed, good reputation matters, I find Dustin Abbott and Christopher Frost to be excellent reviewers, they're very consistent, professional and thorough.
> 
> In my experience haven't come across any dishonest reviewers, the marketing departments for the companies do that best, they have no peers! [..]


It doesn't even have to be about honesty, it can be about what they focus on. I'm interested in how well a camera/lens can track dragonflies. I couldn't care less about how it compares to Sony/Nikon/whatever, I don't have the motivation or means to switch systems. A 30 minute limit on video also doesn't bother me, nor does overheating in video modes. Or for lenses, I don't care if the shell is plastic or metal and care even less about "luxery feel". But that's what gets the clicks and keeps ending up in reviews.

So: more dragonflies, less opinionated aestheticism in reviews.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> It doesn't even have to be about honesty, it can be about what they focus on. I'm interested in how well a camera/lens can track dragonflies. I couldn't care less about how it compares to Sony/Nikon/whatever, I don't have the motivation or means to switch systems. A 30 minute limit on video also doesn't bother me, nor does overheating in video modes. Or for lenses, I don't care if the shell is plastic or metal and care even less about "luxery feel". But that's what gets the clicks and keeps ending up in reviews.
> 
> So: more dragonflies, less opinionated aestheticism in reviews.


Wait, you want reviewers to show you how well the camera performs taking pictures of flying dragons?


----------



## jvillain (Sep 29, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Since there is no perfect camera for all purposes, marketing departments are known to be fallible, and product design involves many compromises between competing properties, it's no surprise that it's possible for cameras to have faults, include bad compromises, or be less than perfect.
> 
> I'm confused, what's wrong with pointing these out to allow buyers to make informed decisions?


In his video about how he was "REVEALING THE TRUTH" about the R3 his entire review was done with out ever seeing or touching the R3. Including his now confirmed to be BS statement that the R3 didn't shoot at the claimed frame rate. Apparently Canon doesn't send him cameras any more so he just fakes it which is why my tong in cheek comment was about him making a video pointing out the flaws of cameras that don't even exist yet.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 29, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> It would mean the vessel needs to display;
> *(i)* two all-round red lights in a vertical line where they can best be seen;
> *(ii)* two balls or similar shapes in a vertical line where they can best be seen;



But since we know M series cameras don't have a lot of waterproofing, it won't matter.


----------



## John Wilde (Sep 29, 2021)

The R Unicorn, rumored since 2018.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 30, 2021)

Tronhard said:


> The crop factor of 1.6 takes the lineal relationship between the diagonals on a crop sensor compared to that of a FF unit. When considering pixel density, which it based on AREA, one must consider the SQUARE of the crop factor.
> For example: in the EOS R6 manual, Canon refers to this value when advising the number of pixels one can get when using an APS-C lens (via the adaptor) on the R6 body, the same table in the R5 indicates a pixel value of 17.3MP for the R5 sensor cropped to APS-C FoV.
> It is given as such:
> 20MP/(1.6x1.6) = 7.7MP refer P855 of the R6 manual.
> 45MP/(1.6x1.6) =17.3 MP refer P900 of the R5 manual.


You are beating a dead horse here. @tbgtomcom realized his error pages ago and yet people continue to pile on the corrections.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2021)

Tronhard said:


> Is there some way of seeing replies as a set with the original post?


Unfortunately, there is no 'threaded' view on these boards, only the 'flat' view.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 30, 2021)

Tronhard said:


> Is there some way of seeing replies as a set with the original post? Then I would be aware of this. There are a lot of posts here and having to go through them all to ensure I am not "beating a dead horse" would be helpful to us all. His post is not the only one that has made this error, so hopefully someone else will benefit from the responses.
> 
> Certainly, no offense was intended.


You could try reading the thread from the beginning before making multiple posts. It may be an effort but it does show courtesy to those wo have posted.


----------



## Tangent (Sep 30, 2021)

Obvious & Prob said already -- but that 100-500 7.1 becomes an 800mm 7.1 with the crop factor... (and 1100 f10 with a tc) Hmmm... this _could_ get interesting.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> You could try reading the thread from the beginning before making multiple posts. It may be an effort but it does show courtesy to those wo have posted.


I think the issue here is the reverse: not reading to the end before replying.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 30, 2021)

Tangent said:


> Obvious & Prob said already -- but that 100-500 7.1 becomes an 800mm 7.1 with the crop factor... (and 1100 f10 with a tc) Hmmm... this _could_ get interesting.


It has indeed been said many times in this and other threads, it does have a field of view of 160-800mm when on a crop factor. But, when it comes to resolution/reach, the pixel density of the sensor is also crucial - a 50 Mpx 5DSR has the same pixel density as a 20 Mpx 7DII and a 500mm lens will have roughly the same resolution on both. When it comes to depth of field, the crop will be equivalent to f/11, etc etc depending on whether you are comparing the full crop image with the full full-frame or cropped full-frame.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 30, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> I think the issue here is the reverse: not reading to the end before replying.


It's frequently both. If you do answer prematurely, it does become clear if you have gone back and continued reading from the quoted post.


----------



## maulanawale (Sep 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> It has indeed been said many times in this and other threads, it does have a field of view of 160-800mm when on a crop factor. But, when it comes to resolution/reach, the pixel density of the sensor is also crucial - a 50 Mpx 5DSR has the same pixel density as a 20 Mpx 7DII and a 500mm lens will have roughly the same resolution on both. When it comes to depth of field, the crop will be equivalent to f/11, etc etc depending on whether you are comparing the full crop image with the full full-frame or cropped full-frame.


Good that you bring up the DOF. The infamous "equivalence' you'll see in every M43 forum that is so often missed when talking APS-C. As an Olympus user I can confirm it is a factor to take into account as it makes isolating subjects close to the background harder in some situations. Can also work to your advantage of course. In any case, a detail worth mentioning.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 30, 2021)

Tronhard said:


> I take your point, and wonder if you (or anyone else for that matter) has ploughed through the whole length of every thread. Reading them all is practical if the thread is a reasonable length, however some of these threads span 20+ pages. That makes responding an extremely long-winded process. If the site wants to make the risk of a duplicate response less, then having a threaded hierarchy would be helpful.
> 
> I might add that I addressed the issue and didn't 'pile into' the poster personally. My post was polite and factual. This is all I am going to say on the matter.


There are many regular participants who clearly read read every post as you can tell from their responses, "likes" etc. I do read through every post on threads where I post, and I have learned a lot from the others who have posted.


----------



## Dalantech (Sep 30, 2021)

AustrianGeek said:


> APS-H would make more sense (and skip on smaller image circle lenses from scratch on). The slight crop would give a nice little magnification + faster readout speeds + cheaper to build sensors / cameras (just a cheaper high speed lineup of bodies like the 90D etc). At least that would make more sense than introducing APS-C again on RF mount. ^^


I am getting picky, kinda. Cropping creates an enlargement, it does not matter when or how you do it, and it does not change the magnification that an image was taken at. Using a crop factor sensor is functionally the same as shooting full frame and cropping in post -anyone who tells you anything different is trying to sell you snake oil. Remember that it is a crop factor, and not a "multiply every aspect of photography factor".


----------



## PhilC (Sep 30, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Not a problem. Canon only needs 1-2 lenses for an APS-C body: a standard zoom similar to the 15-85 EF-S and a wide angle similar to the 10-22 EF-S. For everything else, standard RF lens focal lengths are fine or even preferred. With the R system, Canon no longer has to worry about separate mounts as they can easily make those crop lenses automatically crop to 1.6 on any R body just as EF-S lenses do now.


I had a dying Canon 7D replaced by the 80D . On both cameras my go to lens was the 15-85 in 80% of the time next the 10-22 and probably less the 70-300. Unfortunately my 15-85 is showing after 11 years some signs of weakening . I also tend to suffer more often of the weight of all of this on my neck. So thinking of replacing all this by something else. The M series doesn't seem to have a travel lens similar to the 15-85, so looking at the R series with one of the two 24-105 to be determined. But this would no make me gain weight. So my hope is an APS-C which will be lighter yet provide the lenses I need and also possibly reuse some of the other lenses I have. Crossing fingers.


----------



## Deleted (Sep 30, 2021)

Dalantech said:


> I am getting picky, kinda. Cropping creates an enlargement, it does not matter when or how you do it, and it does not change the magnification that an image was taken at. Using a crop factor sensor is functionally the same as shooting full frame and cropping in post -anyone who tells you anything different is trying to sell you snake oil. Remember that it is a crop factor, and not a "multiply every aspect of photography factor".


I agree. The advantage of a crop camera is just about pixels on subject for a given distance and lens, and apparent DOF for a particular field of view.


----------



## Billybob (Sep 30, 2021)

Dalantech said:


> I am getting picky, kinda. Cropping creates an enlargement, it does not matter when or how you do it, and it does not change the magnification that an image was taken at. Using a crop factor sensor is functionally the same as shooting full frame and cropping in post -anyone who tells you anything different is trying to sell you snake oil. Remember that it is a crop factor, and not a "multiply every aspect of photography factor".


Yes, functionally the same as shooting with a 75MP (or whatever the previous posters calculated) full-frame camera and cropping. Since we don't have 75MP full frame cameras (and the 60MP Sony did not provide perceptibly more detail than a 42-45MP camera), a 30MP APS-C could provide a nice boost in resolved detail regardless of whether you call it magnification or reach. Plus, the body will undoubtedly be (substantially) less expensive than what a 75MP full-frame camera is likely to cost.


----------



## Czardoom (Oct 1, 2021)

Dalantech said:


> I am getting picky, kinda. Cropping creates an enlargement, it does not matter when or how you do it, and it does not change the magnification that an image was taken at. Using a crop factor sensor is functionally the same as shooting full frame and cropping in post -anyone who tells you anything different is trying to sell you snake oil. Remember that it is a crop factor, and not a "multiply every aspect of photography factor".


Not trying to sell you snake oil, but..no...it's not the same. Cropping alters the composition. It is easier to create your composition when you can use the entire sensor and viewfinder compared to anticipating where you will crop for a cropped composition. And since (as others have mentioned) there are no FF cameras with the same pixel density as the highest MP crop sensors, you will have lower pixel density.

Perhaps it is time we stopped calling APS-C sensors "crop" sensors. They are just a different size sensor. Do we call FF sensors crop sensors as if they are cropped from medium format? Or medium format "cropped" since it is smaller than large format? There have always been many sizes for film and now digital sensors. When Kodak introduced the APS film cameras, nobody said, "Oh, that is just a cropped version of 35mm film." So, why is it that we began to call that particular sensor size "crop" in our digital age, when the sensor is the same (or similar) size as APS film? APS was an existing format - not something created when cameras went digital. (As an aside, the actual APS-C size is a cropped image, but not cropped from 35mm, but cropped from 30.2 × 16.7 mm, which was the maximum size of the film negative with an aspect ratio of 16:9).


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 1, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Not trying to sell you snake oil, but..no...it's not the same. Cropping alters the composition. It is easier to create your composition when you can use the entire sensor and viewfinder compared to anticipating where you will crop for a cropped composition. And since (as others have mentioned) there are no FF cameras with the same pixel density as the highest MP crop sensors, you will have lower pixel density.
> 
> Perhaps it is time we stopped calling APS-C sensors "crop" sensors. They are just a different size sensor. Do we call FF sensors crop sensors as if they are cropped from medium format? Or medium format "cropped" since it is smaller than large format? There have always been many sizes for film and now digital sensors. When Kodak introduced the APS film cameras, nobody said, "Oh, that is just a cropped version of 35mm film." * So, why is it that we began to call that particular sensor size "crop" in our digital age, when the sensor is the same (or similar) size as APS film? * APS was an existing format - not something created when cameras went digital. (As an aside, the actual APS-C size is a cropped image, but not cropped from 35mm, but cropped from 30.2 × 16.7 mm, which was the maximum size of the film negative with an aspect ratio of 16:9).


Because crop sensor cameras often use lenses designed for cameras with larger sensors. In Canon's case 'crop' sensors came along well before EF-S lenses.

APS film cameras generally had built in lenses and the image quality was utter crap, which is why they never really caught on.


----------



## Chig (Oct 1, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Certainly hope this is true and that it's a stacked CMOS sensor as well as BSI.

Ideally (bit of personal wish fulfilment here) Canon would make 3 cameras with this sensor:

a flagship/pro model based on the R3 and priced between the R5 and the R3 (pretty unlikely but would be awesome)
a 7Dii replacement based on the R6 and priced about the same as the R6 (reasonably likely and should be pretty popular)
an ultra compact model similar to the M6ii (should be popular with M users and vloggers
Perhaps Canon might use this sensor in a new M mount camera too

Canon might also make a cheaper RF model using the sensor from the M6ii/90D

Be interesting to see what Canon actually decide to produce


----------



## Chig (Oct 1, 2021)

Traveler said:


> It may be a "little R3". Same like the 7D was a small 1D. Then the BSI would make sense for super fast read-out


BSI improves light capture (because of the wiring not blocking the light) but _not_ read out speeds , a stacked sensor improves read out speeds.
Lets hope the sensor is both BSI and stacked CMOS


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 4, 2021)

Franklyok said:


> Eos - m , finally completely death. ( if they will not come out with competition to DJI pocket )


The 7D market is not the same as the EOS-M market, and there's very little crossover. I don't think this spells death for the EOS-M in particular. Let's wait and see. There's still nothing that can replace the EOS-M in terms of low-cost, compact, mirrorless APS-C lenses.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Oct 4, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> that should please a lot of folks.. hope it's true


Wow, yeah. I was traveling and really offline, so just found this rumors just today. Maybe it's the long awaited successor of the 7D II, and with a BSI sensor I'd not hesitate much to hit the button


----------



## Dalantech (Oct 5, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Not trying to sell you snake oil, but..no...it's not the same. Cropping alters the composition. It is easier to create your composition when you can use the entire sensor and viewfinder compared to anticipating where you will crop for a cropped composition. And since (as others have mentioned) there are no FF cameras with the same pixel density as the highest MP crop sensors, you will have lower pixel density.


My point was that cropping an image does not change the magnification. FWIW: I do all of my composition and framing with the view finder and only crop in post if someone wants a square print or I want the subject to be larger in the frame for a print.


----------



## Dalantech (Oct 5, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> I agree. The advantage of a crop camera is just about pixels on subject for a given distance and lens, and apparent DOF for a particular field of view.


Great for a macro shooter like me cause I can fill the frame with the subject at lower magnifications than shooting with a full frame sensor, and that drop in mag gives me more depth of field. Could get the exact same effect shooting full frame and cropping in post to the same crop factor though, and I am getting tempted to get a Canon R5. If Canon comes out with an MP-E 65mm lens with an RF mount I will pull the trigger.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 5, 2021)

Dalantech said:


> My point was that cropping an image does not change the magnification. FWIW: I do all of my composition and framing with the view finder and only crop in post if someone wants a square print or I want the subject to be larger in the frame for a print.


Cropping doesn’t change the optical magnification, but it does change _final_ magnification. Consider your example – if you are making a 16x20 print, and you crop in post because you want the subject to be larger in the frame for that print, the subject is enlarged further with the crop.

The same applies to DoF. To compare DoF under various conditions, certain parameters are held constant, typically an assumed viewing size of an 8x10 print viewed at 25 cm. Thus, if you shoot at 1:1 optical magnification and crop the output (regardless of whether that crop is in post or with a smaller sensor), the magnification of the subject is greater and the cropped image will have shallower DoF (usually the opposite of what you want at 1:1 where DoF is already very shallow).


----------



## Dalantech (Oct 5, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Cropping doesn’t change the optical magnification, but it does change _final_ magnification. Consider your example – if you are making a 16x20 print, and you crop in post because you want the subject to be larger in the frame for that print, the subject is enlarged further with the crop.
> 
> The same applies to DoF. To compare DoF under various conditions, certain parameters are held constant, typically an assumed viewing size of an 8x10 print viewed at 25 cm. Thus, if you shoot at 1:1 optical magnification and crop the output (regardless of whether that crop is in post or with a smaller sensor), the magnification of the subject is greater and the cropped image will have shallower DoF (usually the opposite of what you want at 1:1 where DoF is already very shallow).



"Cropping doesn’t change the optical magnification" -you should have just stopped right there, cause that is the only part of your reply that is correct. Cropping does not change the magnification of an image, and it most definitely does not change the depth of field. The only thing cropping does is make the subject look larger in the frame -it creates an enlargement. If you actually increased the mag then you would be able to resolve finer details (baring diffraction and lens characteristics). Cropping will not reveal detail that was not already in the image. Magnification and enlargement are not interchangeable terms. Although people use them incorrectly in the same context in much the same way as closeup and macro are misused.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 5, 2021)

Dalantech said:


> "Cropping doesn’t change the optical magnification" -you should have just stopped right there, cause that is the only part of your reply that is correct. Cropping does not change the magnification of an image, and it most definitely does not change the depth of field. The only thing cropping does is make the subject look larger in the frame -it creates an enlargement. If you actually increased the mag then you would be able to resolve finer details (baring diffraction and lens characteristics). Cropping will not reveal detail that was not already in the image. Magnification and enlargement are not interchangeable terms. Although people use them incorrectly in the same context in much the same way as closeup and macro are misused.


“Magnification and enlargement are not interchangeable terms.” You should have led with that and just stopped there, The rest of your post is incorrect. While you are correct that I inappropriately used the term magnification when enlargement was the correct word, enlargement most certainly does affect depth of field.

‘Making the subject look larger in the frame’ decreases the DoF. As stated above, the underlying assumption is that the viewing size (‘frame’) is constant. If you crop out the a 4 x 6 area of an 8 x 10 print and print it at 4 x 6, the DoF won’t change. But if you enlarge that 4 x 6 area to print at 8 x 10, the DoF will be shallower.


----------



## Dalantech (Oct 5, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> “Magnification and enlargement are not interchangeable terms.” You should have led with that and just stopped there, The rest of your post is incorrect. While you are correct that I inappropriately used the term magnification when enlargement was the correct word, enlargement most certainly does affect depth of field.
> 
> ‘Making the subject look larger in the frame’ decreases the DoF. As stated above, the underlying assumption is that the viewing size (‘frame’) is constant. If you crop out the a 4 x 6 area of an 8 x 10 print and print it at 4 x 6, the DoF won’t change. _*But if you enlarge that 4 x 6 area to print at 8 x 10, the DoF will be shallower.*_


You and I are gonna have to agree to disagree on that last sentence. Depth of field, detail, and magnification are fixed as soon as you press the shutter release. Cropping will not reveal anything that was not already in the image.


----------



## Deleted (Oct 5, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> “Magnification and enlargement are not interchangeable terms.” You should have led with that and just stopped there, The rest of your post is incorrect. While you are correct that I inappropriately used the term magnification when enlargement was the correct word, enlargement most certainly does affect depth of field.
> 
> ‘Making the subject look larger in the frame’ decreases the DoF. As stated above, the underlying assumption is that the viewing size (‘frame’) is constant. If you crop out the a 4 x 6 area of an 8 x 10 print and print it at 4 x 6, the DoF won’t change. But if you enlarge that 4 x 6 area to print at 8 x 10, the DoF will be shallower.


Surely with a given lens only the aperture and distance from subject change DOF?

How can enlarging a shot in post change what is captured? Please explain as I just have no idea why you think that would be the case!


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 5, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> Surely with a given lens only the aperture and distance from subject change DOF?
> 
> How can enlarging a shot in post change what is captured? Please explain as I just have no idea why you think that would be the case!


See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field for a more in-depth explanation.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 5, 2021)

Dalantech said:


> You and I are gonna have to agree to disagree on that last sentence. Depth of field, detail, and magnification are fixed as soon as you press the shutter release. Cropping will not reveal anything that was not already in the image.


We can disagree, but only one of us is right. I suspect you don't understand the role of the circle of confusion (CoC) in determining the DoF. You may want to read up on that a bit. It's why, for example, an image viewed at a small size appears to have deeper DoF. Here's an example where the hair and flower appear in focus at small viewing size, but in reality only the flower is in focus. The reduction in size of the full image increased the DoF because it changed the perceived sharpness of the image. The same is true in reverse – enlarging an image results in a shallower DoF.




It's ok if you don't understand the concept, even though it's called the circle of confusion for reasons that have nothing to do with people being confused about it, many people are.

DoF calculators take CoC into account for their calculations. Here's an example from one such calculator, a shot at 100mm f/4 with a subject distance of 50 cm. If you change only the sensor size, you see that the FF sensor has a deeper DoF than the APS-C sensor, because the smaller sensor has a smaller CoC, so the resulting image must be enlarged more for final viewing (again, for comparison purposes we assume a fixed output size and viewing distance).





If you pick an even smaller sensor, like the 1" sensor in the Nikon 1, the DoF gets even shallower, because a deeper crop means even greater enlargement is needed.


----------



## Deleted (Oct 5, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field for a more in-depth explanation.


I understand DOF. The implication above is that if you enlarge an image the DOF will change, and by enlarge the implication was an image already taken just enlarged for print.


----------



## Deleted (Oct 5, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> We can disagree, but only one of us is right. I suspect you don't understand the role of the circle of confusion (CoC) in determining the DoF. You may want to read up on that a bit. It's why, for example, an image viewed at a small size appears to have deeper DoF. Here's an example where the hair and flower appear in focus at small viewing size, but in reality only the flower is in focus. The reduction in size of the full image increased the DoF because it changed the perceived sharpness of the image. The same is true in reverse – enlarging an image results in a shallower DoF.
> 
> View attachment 200620


What you are showing there has nothing to do with DOF. The image is taken already so the DOF cannot change. What you are seeing is the enlargement has less data in any given region. This leads to a perception of softness when in truth nothing has changed. We can add to that artificial interpolation that makes everything seem even softer. 


neuroanatomist said:


> It's ok if you don't understand the concept, even though it's called the circle of confusion for reasons that have nothing to do with people being confused about it, many people are.
> 
> DoF calculators take CoC into account for their calculations. Here's an example from one such calculator, a shot at 100mm f/4 with a subject distance of 50 cm. If you change only the sensor size, you see that the FF sensor has a deeper DoF than the APS-C sensor, because the smaller sensor has a smaller CoC, so the resulting image must be enlarged more for final viewing (again, for comparison purposes we assume a fixed output size and viewing distance).
> 
> ...


Yes, they do account for circle of confusion. You need to understand why there is a difference, and that is down to ratios of the size of the subject on the sensor. It is a perceived change, not an absolute one. It is made on the assumption the resulting image will be displayed age the same size in both cases.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 5, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> I understand DOF.


Sorry, but if you think that only aperture and subject distance alone determine depth of field, then you don’t understand DoF completely.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 5, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> What you are showing there has nothing to do with DOF. The image is taken already so the DOF cannot change. What you are seeing is the enlargement has less data in any given region. This leads to a perception of softness when in truth nothing has changed. We can add to that artificial interpolation that makes everything seem even softer.


Depth of field includes a component determined by perception. Visual acuity is part of what determines depth of field, so when you and I look at the same image printed at the same size, we may perceive a different depth of field if we have sufficiently different visual acuity.



Distinctly Average said:


> It is made on the assumption the resulting image will be displayed age the same size in both cases.


Do you believe it’s valid to compare a 4x6 print with a billboard? Or a 4x6 print viewed at arms length versus from across the room? Personally, I do not.


----------



## Deleted (Oct 5, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but if you think that only aperture and subject distance alone determine depth of field, then you don’t understand DoF completely.


No, but these are the main influences.


neuroanatomist said:


> Depth of field includes a component determined by perception. Visual acuity is part of what determines depth of field, so when you and I look at the same image printed at the same size, we may perceive a different depth of field if we have sufficiently different visual acuity.
> 
> 
> Do you believe it’s valid to compare a 4x6 print with a billboard? Or a 4x6 print viewed at arms length versus from across the room? Personally, I do not.


I think we are cross talking on different concepts of DOF. The traditional concept does have limitations. Camera manufacturers for instance base thei markings on this concept and use a set viewing size and distance of the resulting print, an 8*10 viewed at 1 foot IIRC.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 5, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> No, but these are the main influences.


Agreed, but not the only factors. For example, if you change the subject distance to match framing between FF and APS-C, that has a larger effect than the difference in CoC from different size sensors or a post-capture crop at the same subject distance (and the effect is in the opposite direction).

But CoC does matter. Some people believe an APS-C sensor is better for macro, because it gives greater DoF. But that’s only true at the same framing. I shoot with both the 100L and the MP-E 65, I generally use FF because at a given magnification it gives a deeper DoF.



Distinctly Average said:


> I think we are cross talking on different concepts of DOF. The traditional concept does have limitations. Camera manufacturers for instance base thei markings on this concept and use a set viewing size and distance of the resulting print, an 8*10 viewed at 1 foot IIRC.


Those assumptions (8x10 print, 12” viewing distance) are the same ones typically used for DoF calculators. What other concept of DoF is there? I mean, you could compare an image from a FF sensor shown on a 38” display with an image at the same focal length, focus distance and aperture from an APS-C sensor shown on a 24” display and say the DoF is the same, but…why? If you view them both on the same monitor, the FF image will have a deeper DoF.

DoF as an abstract concept isn’t very useful. What is the relevance of the DoF in an image that you aren’t viewing? When you view an image, how you view it (enlargement, viewing size and distance) affects the DoF. Werner Karl Heisenberg’s principle applied (loosely) to photography.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 5, 2021)

Oh boy! We've been through this so many times. I'd like to know what, other than lens aperture, distance to subject and focal length of the lens, is going to affect depth of field? Real depth of field, not perception of depth of field.

In this example the depth of field does not change.



neuroanatomist said:


> Here's an example where the hair and flower appear in focus at small viewing size, but in reality only the flower is in focus. The reduction in size of the full image increased the DoF because it changed the perceived sharpness of the image. The same is true in reverse – enlarging an image results in a shallower DoF.



What changes is, as the image is enlarged, it is easier for the eye to *perceive* the lack of focus. The reverse is true as well, the smaller the image size the sharper the image is going to* appear* to the human eye. But, the actual depth of field never changes, it's simply that the larger the image, the easier it is for the human eye to see that an object is not in focus. And, yes, viewing distance will make a difference in *perceived* depth of field. A billboard viewed from the street may appear sharp, but when viewed from three feet away, any lack of sharpness will become apparent. Depth of field doesn't magically change, it is simply a limitation of our own biology.

This is a correct statement:



Dalantech said:


> Depth of field, detail, and magnification are fixed as soon as you press the shutter release. Cropping will not reveal anything that was not already in the image.


----------



## Jethro (Oct 5, 2021)

I think the argument may be around accepted measures of DoF, which do take into account perceived DoF (and a standardised size etc), and which are useful if you are making comparisons between (eg) different sensor types and/or crops.


----------



## Deleted (Oct 5, 2021)

Jethro said:


> I think the argument may be around accepted measures of DoF, which do take into account perceived DoF (and a standardised size etc), and which are useful if you are making comparisons between (eg) different sensor types and/or crops.


Thing is, does it really matter? Most photographers I know never think about it, or need to. Skills developed over time give us an ability to know what works. We just want to enjoy our hobby or profession. Always good to discuss these things though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 5, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Oh boy! We've been through this so many times.


Yes, because you and others continue failing to grasp the concept and persist in posting incorrect information. 



unfocused said:


> I'd like to know what, other than lens aperture, distance to subject and focal length of the lens, is going to affect depth of field? Real depth of field, not perception of depth of field.
> 
> In this example the depth of field does not change.
> 
> What changes is, as the image is enlarged, it is easier for the eye to *perceive* the lack of focus. The reverse is true as well, the smaller the image size the sharper the image is going to* appear* to the human eye. But, the actual depth of field never changes, it's simply that the larger the image, the easier it is for the human eye to see that an object is not in focus. And, yes, viewing distance will make a difference in *perceived* depth of field. A billboard viewed from the street may appear sharp, but when viewed from three feet away, any lack of sharpness will become apparent. Depth of field doesn't magically change, it is simply a limitation of our own biology.


Depth of field is perception-dependent. DoF is commonly defined as, “The distance between the nearest and the farthest objects that are in *acceptably sharp focus* in an image.” The Oxford Dictionary makes it even more evident: “The distance between the nearest and the furthest objects that give an image *judged to be in focus* in a camera.”

Apparently you have a definition in your head that differs from the canonical one. Can you articulate your perception-independent definition of ‘real depth of field’? Or share an accurate mathematical expression of DoF that omits the CoC term?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 5, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Oh boy! We've been through this so many times. I'd like to know what, other than lens aperture, distance to subject and focal length of the lens, is going to affect depth of field? Real depth of field, not perception of depth of field.
> 
> In this example the depth of field does not change.
> 
> ...


You are so wrong on this it is painful. As it the statement you say is correct, it isn’t.

Depth of field is determined by two things after you have defined the ‘acceptable focus part’. CoC defines the acceptable focus, the end result subject magnification and the size of the aperture (not the f stop) determine the dof.

Now because subject magnification changes the dof, distance from the print or screen also changes the dof.





How (and why) does sensor size change DOF?


The simplest answer is from Gale Tattersall, DP of the TV show HOUSE : a larger sensor requires a longer lens to achieve the same field of view. The longer the lens the less DOF. (aperture staying the same of course) Which aperture: the f-stop or the physical one? If it is the former, start...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## Jethro (Oct 6, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> Thing is, does it really matter? Most photographers I know never think about it, or need to. Skills developed over time give us an ability to know what works. We just want to enjoy our hobby or profession. Always good to discuss these things though.


And of course, in that sense it doesn't matter. 

My own perception is that I get a much better DoF with a FF sensor (EOS R) than I did with lower MP DSLRs (FF and APS-C). But that probably also reflects the fact that I'm (at some level at least) a better photographer now than I was with those DSLRs a few years ago, and I have access to a different (and faster) selection of lenses. But, for others, DoF is something which can be objectively evaluated, and used as a point of comparison with other set-ups - and that's true too. We're all different.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 6, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> Thing is, does it really matter? Most photographers I know never think about it, or need to. Skills developed over time give us an ability to know what works...


Yes, and I shouldn't allow myself to be drawn into this meaningless discussion. Same old flawed arguments and mansplaining from the same people. Same links to pseudo-science. Now, depth of field has become all about perception. I only need to take off my glasses and suddenly depth of field increases because everything looks to be of equal sharpness.

Not worth my time explaining. @Distinctly Average and @Dalantech you are still correct and don't be intimidated by the bullies on this forum who say otherwise.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2021)

Jethro said:


> I think the argument may be around accepted measures of DoF, which do take into account perceived DoF (and a standardised size etc), and which are useful if you are making comparisons between (eg) different sensor types and/or crops.


Depth of field has a clear definition. People can argue about how they understand the definition as much as they like, they can misrepresent the actual definition if they like and they can make up their own definitions if they like, but they are still wrong.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Yes, and I shouldn't allow myself to be drawn into this meaningless discussion. Same old flawed arguments and mansplaining from the same people. Same links to pseudo-science. Now, depth of field has become all about perception. I only need to take off my glasses and suddenly depth of field increases because everything looks to be of equal sharpness.
> 
> Not worth my time explaining. @Distinctly Average and @Dalantech you are still correct and don't be intimidated by the bullies on this forum who say otherwise.


Why be like that? Show a definitive link to a trusted source that doesn’t include ‘acceptable sharpness’ or similar in the definition of depth of field.









Depth of field - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




” "Acceptably sharp focus" is defined using a property called the _circle of confusion_.”









Depth of field: What do I need to know?


Guide to depth of field designed for those new to self-shooting, covering focus, focussing distance, focal length, aperture and sensor.



www.bbc.com




”The depth of field in an image is the distance between the parts that appear in focus.”






Understanding Depth of Field in Photography







www.cambridgeincolour.com




”Depth of field refers to the range of distance that appears acceptably sharp.”

If you don’t trust Wikipedia or the BBC show me a link that you do trust. I’m not bullying or mansplaning anything, I am telling you your understanding of the definition of depth of field is 100% incorrect.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> Thing is, does it really matter? Most photographers I know never think about it, or need to. Skills developed over time give us an ability to know what works. We just want to enjoy our hobby or profession. Always good to discuss these things though.


Depends really. If you are looking for a definition then being told the wrong one is unhelpful. If you are trying to understand the physics of the thing then getting the correct answer seems helpful. If you are an uninterested photographer who just likes taking pictures and gets the results you want then no, it doesn’t matter. If you are shooting different formats and want a consistent ‘look’ to your images then it can help.

But whatever the importance of the facts to any individual being told completely incorrect information doesn’t help anybody.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Yes, and I shouldn't allow myself to be drawn into this meaningless discussion. Same old flawed arguments and mansplaining from the same people. Same links to pseudo-science. Now, depth of field has become all about perception. I only need to take off my glasses and suddenly depth of field increases because everything looks to be of equal sharpness.
> 
> Not worth my time explaining. @Distinctly Average and @Dalantech you are still correct and don't be intimidated by the bullies on this forum who say otherwise.


Translation: I can't provide an answer to a simply and directly phrased request for an alternate yet correct definition. I provided definitions from Wikipedia and the Oxford Dictionary that directly contradict your statements. You cry bullying and intimidation – does a dictionary definition scare you?

"All about perception" – no, but if you want to totally misrepresent my statements to try and make yourself feel correct, well, that's all too common on the internet.

It would be refreshing for someone to just admit they are wrong when their 'opinion' is contradicted by pretty much every reputable source. Not that I expect any such thing. Flat Earthers are completely convinced that they're correct, as are anti-vaxxers.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> I understand DOF. The implication above is that if you enlarge an image the DOF will change, and by enlarge the implication was an image already taken just enlarged for print.








How (and why) does sensor size change DOF?


The simplest answer is from Gale Tattersall, DP of the TV show HOUSE : a larger sensor requires a longer lens to achieve the same field of view. The longer the lens the less DOF. (aperture staying the same of course) Which aperture: the f-stop or the physical one? If it is the former, start...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> I understand DOF. The implication above is that if you enlarge an image the DOF will change, and by enlarge the implication was an image already taken just enlarged for print.


Not an implication, a fact.

"Enlargement: The larger the image is reproduced, the shallower the DOF. The smaller the reproduction, the longer the DOF. This factor is similar to the viewing distance described above. Reproduce a blurry spot on a giant highway billboard and it’s a huge, blurry spot. Reproduce it on a tiny wallet-sized print and it might look like a single point of light."

From:








Depth of Field, Part I: The Basics


In Part I of this three-part series of B&H articles, we explain the principles of depth of field, how it works, and how you can use it to your advantage.




www.bhphotovideo.com





So yes, simply enlarging an image changes the DoF.

@Distinctly Average and @unfocused, you might want to read the full series from B&H on DoF Basics. Maybe you'll learn something.


----------



## Czardoom (Oct 6, 2021)

Ah, the joys of this forum! For someone not in the fight, it is funny to see the disagreements are merely ones of semantics. Both sides understand what is happening in terms of how DOF affects photos - but they don't seem to realize that they DO both understand, but are merely looking at the definition in different ways. 

As unfocused wrote, "But, the actual depth of field never changes, it's simply that the larger the image, the easier it is for the human eye to see that an object is not in focus. And, yes, viewing distance will make a difference in *perceived* depth of field."

So, he understands that, as the photo is enlarged, out of focus areas will appear more out of focus. That's the important part, and he gets it. 

So, he separates the actual camera settings and the actual image from the perception of that image at different sizes. Does it really matter that he separates the two? Does it really matter that his definition does not match Neuro's , or Wikipedia's - as long as everyone does understand what is happening?

If everyone understands what is happening correctly, then it becomes a matter of differing semantics. Not worth all the arguing...unless, of course, being "RIGHT" is more important than giving accurate information, rather than accurate definitions. And, yes, there is a difference between accurate information and an accurate definition.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> If everyone understands what is happening correctly, then it becomes a matter of differing semantics. Not worth all the arguing...unless, of course, being "RIGHT" is more important than giving accurate information, rather than accurate definitions. And, yes, there is a difference between accurate information and an accurate definition.


IF. But that's not the case. As a very simple demonstration, @unfocused stated that this statement by @Dalantech is correct:


Dalantech said:


> Depth of field, detail, and magnification are fixed as soon as you press the shutter release.



But, it is not correct. Depth of field is not fixed when the shutter button is pressed. To claim that a false statement is true is not giving accurate information. And he has declined to give any sort of definition. Those aren't semantics, unless claiming the earth is flat is just a semantic distinction from it being (roughly) spherical.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Ah, the joys of this forum! For someone not in the fight, it is funny to see the disagreements are merely ones of semantics. Both sides understand what is happening in terms of how DOF affects photos - but they don't seem to realize that they DO both understand, but are merely looking at the definition in different ways.
> 
> As unfocused wrote, "But, the actual depth of field never changes, it's simply that the larger the image, the easier it is for the human eye to see that an object is not in focus. And, yes, viewing distance will make a difference in *perceived* depth of field."
> 
> ...


As I said, to some people it matters, to others it doesn’t. But for people that do want to understand isn’t it incumbent on us to present the correct definition of a term?

If you are of the opinion that DoF is set when you take the image you are wrong, that is a little bit more serious than arguing semantics.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 6, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Ah, the joys of this forum! For someone not in the fight, it is funny to see the disagreements are merely ones of semantics. Both sides understand what is happening in terms of how DOF affects photos - but they don't seem to realize that they DO both understand, but are merely looking at the definition in different ways.
> 
> As unfocused wrote, "But, the actual depth of field never changes, it's simply that the larger the image, the easier it is for the human eye to see that an object is not in focus. And, yes, viewing distance will make a difference in *perceived* depth of field."
> 
> ...



Thank you. This is why I really want to exit this discussion. We are splitting hairs and I have no doubt that all the participants understand the concepts. I really have tried to avoid these discussions of late. I was drawn into this one because I felt that @Distinctly Average and @Dalantech were being attacked unfairly and I wanted to defend their statements, which are far more right than wrong. I am trying my best to follow a guiding principle that I will not initiate these discussions, but I will defend those with less experience on this forum who inadvertently wander into them. 

My rationale really has more to do with trying to make this more of a welcoming place. There are idiots who join this forum simply to make ridiculous statements and they deserve all the venom that they get. But there are others who get bullied for posts that are essentially correct. Over the years, I've seen many well-meaning contributors (including some very high caliber photographers) driven away because a handful of participants scour the site looking for arguments.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2021)

unfocused said:


> ...I have no doubt that all the participants understand the concepts.


When a participant makes incorrect statements and is unable or unwilling to back them up with any sources, there is significant cause for doubt that all participants understand the concepts.

I should add that I have enormous respect for @Dalantech as a photographer and as a master of lighting for macro photography. But just because someone is an expert in one area of a field, it does not automatically follow that they are an expert in all areas of that field.


----------



## EricN (Oct 6, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, because you and others continue failing to grasp the concept and persist in posting incorrect information.
> 
> 
> Depth of field is perception-dependent. DoF is commonly defined as, “The distance between the nearest and the farthest objects that are in *acceptably sharp focus* in an image.” The Oxford Dictionary makes it even more evident: “The distance between the nearest and the furthest objects that give an image *judged to be in focus* in a camera.”


These definitions explain how you can have pan focus, without a special lens. Everything is not in focus if looked closely, but it is acceptably sharp when viewed normally.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> As I said, to some people it matters, to others it doesn’t. But for people that do want to understand isn’t it incumbent on us to present the correct definition of a term?
> 
> If you are of the opinion that DoF is set when you take the image you are wrong, that is a little bit more serious than arguing semantics.


 It is not enjoyable for a participant in a discussion to worry that he may misuse one word or not fully describe a particular item without the scrutiny of those who wish to correct their statement. This type of correction can be taken by some as rude, especially when it seems that individual is just looking to correct your statement without offering anything else to the conversation. 

On another point you are incorrect, and you can decide if this is semantics. The DoF is set when you take the image, in as much as what others have said, you can not change what has been saved in the camera. You can manipulate the picture, you can change your view and distance and what appears in focus may change with your view. At whatever size you print or the distance you decide to view the acceptably sharp focus of the items in an image were set for your selected distance and size when you took the picture.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> It is not enjoyable for a participant in a discussion to worry that he may misuse one word or not fully describe a particular item without the scrutiny of those who wish to correct their statement. This type of correction can be taken by some as rude, especially when it seems that individual is just looking to correct your statement without offering anything else to the conversation.
> 
> On another point you are incorrect, and you can decide if this is semantics. The DoF is set when you take the image, in as much as what others have said, you can not change what has been saved in the camera. You can manipulate the picture, you can change your view and distance and what appears in focus may change with your view. At whatever size you print or the distance you decide to view the acceptably sharp focus of the items in an image were set for your selected distance and size when you took the picture.


We aren’t discussing the misuse of a single word we are disagreeing on the basic understanding of a core aspect of photography, depth of field.

If you believe I am incorrect find me a link from a single reputable source that supports your understanding of the term.

Alternatively explain to me why the level of “acceptable focus” (the very definition of depth of field by all reputable sources) changes in these two images?


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 6, 2021)

unfocused said:


> My rationale really has more to do with trying to make this more of a welcoming place. There are idiots who join this forum simply to make ridiculous statements and they deserve all the venom that they get. But there are others who get bullied for posts that are essentially correct. Over the years, I've seen many well-meaning contributors (including some very high caliber photographers) driven away because a handful of participants scour the site looking for arguments.


Its a toxic environment when there is always someone looking to either correct your grammar or just twist the meaning of what you say to start an argument. 
You have a good dream of what forums should be.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 6, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> Its a toxic environment when there is always someone looking to either correct your grammar or just twist the meaning of what you say to start an argument.
> You have a good dream of what forums should be.


Well, I admit I probably fail more than I succeed, but I certainly agree with your first statement. 

Many times people wrap their aggression in the cloak of claiming they are just trying to educate others. But, most of the time, people don't need or desire that "education."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> On another point you are incorrect, and you can decide if this is semantics. The DoF is set when you take the image, in as much as what others have said, you can not change what has been saved in the camera. You can manipulate the picture, you can change your view and distance and what appears in focus may change with your view. At whatever size you print or the distance you decide to view the acceptably sharp focus of the items in an image were set for your selected distance and size when you took the picture.


Sorry, but that’s not semantics, it’s just wrong. ‘Acceptable sharpness’ changes with enlargement, it is not fixed at the time of image capture. A slightly OOF image appears sharp when viewed at small size or large distance. Thus, what is ‘within the DoF’ decreases as an image is enlarged.






takesome1 said:


> Its a toxic environment when there is always someone looking to either correct your grammar or just twist the meaning of what you say to start an argument.
> You have a good dream of what forums should be.


Correcting a false statement is not correcting grammar or twisting a meaning. If I said image sensors are made primarily of magnesium alloy, that would be false and I’d hope someone would correct me. When asked to provide support for a statement like that, I would fail. Because it’s not true.

I posted a statement from an article on the B&H website clearly stating that enlargement of an image results in a shallower DoF. You are claiming that it does not. Can you support your claim with external source information?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> Its a toxic environment when there is always someone looking to either correct your grammar or just twist the meaning of what you say to start an argument.
> You have a good dream of what forums should be.


So I am pilloried for trying to correct an incorrect definition of a core element of photography that I do by links and examples to world respected outlets?

I have been accused of bullying and mansplaining when all I have done is provided high quality link after link to facts. This might be a dumb forum and any of us might be entitled to our own opinions, however we are not entitled to our own facts.

Depth of field is a function of two factors, 1/ output magnification (how much of your angle of vision is taken up with the image), 2/ the size of the aperture used (the actual hole size not the f stop). The deciding factor of those two metrics is the CoC (how blurred a point can be before you consider it a blob). It is as simple as that. The logical extension of that is that if you make a picture smaller (move away from it) more of it becomes ‘acceptably sharp’. This is so simple to test for yourself it is almost unfathomable that so many of you are so wrong on this core photography issue.

Take a sharp picture, add a little blur to it so on your computer screen it is just not quite sharp. Now look at that same picture still with the blur applied on your phone. It will appear sharp again.


----------



## Jethro (Oct 6, 2021)

As a very junior member of the forum, who comes here partly out of an interest in technical (ie precise) terms, I personally like a lot of the technical-speak - because I learn from it. 

I would prefer it, though, if discussions and controversies could be carried out with less heat than seems to have been building up recently. If people disagree with each other, is there really a point in rehearsing the argument/s over and over? If outright trolls (or other species of provocateur) are involved, my attitude is that they are fair game (within the rules of the Forum and General Decorum), but I would have thought that the current controversy was between relatively like-minded and reasonable people. And therefore should be conducted, and ended, in that context.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> We aren’t discussing the misuse of a single word we are disagreeing on the basic understanding of a core aspect of photography, depth of field.
> 
> If you believe I am incorrect find me a link from a single reputable source that supports your understanding of the term.
> 
> Alternatively explain to me why the level of “acceptable focus” (the very definition of depth of field by all reputable sources) changes in these two images?


My first statement had nothing to do with DoF, rather those individuals in the forum that feel the need to correct others.

I need no source, your images prove my point. The data that gave those two images their DoF was determined in the camera. Not when you enlarged them. Your enlargement only highlighted it. When you choose the size and crop you wanted you were limited by the data collected in the camera. 

I need to provide you no proof of my understanding no more than you provided Czardoom any proof he was wrong. You made the initial statement you back it up.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Well, I admit I probably fail more than I succeed, but I certainly agree with your first statement.
> 
> Many times people wrap their aggression in the cloak of claiming they are just trying to educate others. But, most of the time, people don't need or desire that "education."


Surely facts matter?

If I said the R5 has 20 stops of DR should I expect that comment to stand? Even if most people don’t care about the DR of the R5?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Many times people wrap their aggression in the cloak of claiming they are just trying to educate others. But, most of the time, people don't need or desire that "education."


So if someone corrects you, they are being aggressive?

If someone asks you to provide evidence to support your claim, that’s being aggressive?

How about accusing someone of bullying and ‘mansplaining’? Not aggressive, because it was you who did that?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> My first statement had nothing to do with DoF, rather those individuals in the forum that feel the need to correct others.
> 
> I need no source, your images prove my point. The data that gave those two images their DoF was determined in the camera. Not when you enlarged them. Your enlargement only highlighted it. When you choose the size and crop you wanted you were limited by the data collected in the camera.
> 
> I need to provide you no proof of my understanding no more than you provided Czardoom any proof he was wrong. You made the initial statement you back it up.


I can’t educate somebody who won’t read and understand the links I provide or who wraps their incorrect opinion up in an emus head in the sand. My images prove the depth of field was not set in the camera - because the areas of acceptable focus - have changed! Remember, all my world respected links used the phrase (or something very close to it) area of acceptable focus.

I didn’t make the initial statement! I was replying to unfocused comment saying Dalantech’s comment was correct, it still isn’t.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Surely facts matter?


Obviously and unfortunately, not to everyone.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> So I am pilloried for trying to correct an incorrect definition of a core element of photography that I do by links and examples to world respected outlets?
> 
> I have been accused of bullying and mansplaining when all I have done is provided high quality link after link to facts. This might be a dumb forum and any of us might be entitled to our own opinions, however we are not entitled to our own facts.


Everyone is entitled to make incorrect statements. Making your own correct statement to counter is totally acceptable. Correcting someone with just a short blunt sentence is often rude. Politeness seems to get left by the wayside often on this forum. 

The DoF arguments earlier were senseless. Debating and telling a seasoned macro photographer that he doesn't understand DoF is silly. DoF is always in the mind of a marco photographer because there is so little.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I can’t educate somebody who won’t read and understand the links I provide or who wraps their incorrect opinion up in an emus head in the sand. My images prove the depth of field was not set in the camera - because the areas of acceptable focus - have changed! Remember, all my world respected links used the phrase (or something very close to it) area of acceptable focus.
> 
> I didn’t make the initial statement! I was replying to unfocused comment saying Dalantech’s comment was correct, it still isn’t.


Yes, semantics and perspective of your point of view. You changed no data. If I view the oof focus picture from across the room it comes back in focus. You changed nothing.
You say I can not be educated and insult, but you choose not to view it from a different point of view.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> Debating and telling a seasoned macro photographer that he doesn't understand DoF is silly. DoF is always in the mind of a marco photographer because there is so little.


He was wrong. Assuming that skill at something automatically confers technical understanding is silly. Muscle energy is always in the mind of Olympic athletes because it is limiting to their performance. How many of those athletes can diagram the glycolytic pathway or understand the role of creatinine in muscle function? I’d guess not many. I cannot run 100 meters in 10 seconds, but I understand muscle physiology. The fact that @Dalantech takes astounding macro images doesn’t mean he automatically understands the technical aspects of DoF any more than Usain Bolt's astounding speed means he automatically understands the sliding filament mechanism.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> Everyone is entitled to make incorrect statements. Making your own correct statement to counter is totally acceptable. Correcting someone with just a short blunt sentence is often rude. Politeness seems to get left by the wayside often on this forum.
> 
> The DoF arguments earlier were senseless. Debating and telling a seasoned macro photographer that he doesn't understand DoF is silly. DoF is always in the mind of a marco photographer because there is so little.


I don’t believe we are entitled to make incorrect statements, though we all do on occasion. I have made my own statement to counter the falsifies being put forward and they included examples, photos, and links to world respected sources, for my troubles I was accused of bullying and mansplaining.

Short blunt sentences give rise to less ambiguity, but even if I was short does that deserve name calling in reply? I certainly wasn’t rude. I asked people suggesting an alternative understanding of a core aspect of photography for links to support their ideas, how many did I get? Not one!

I wasn’t involved in the earlier comments in the thread so I should not be roped into any fallout from them. However I have noticed that many people here have strong opinions yet are unwilling to back them up with links or examples, I use outside links and hundreds and hundreds of example images to illustrate exactly what I am talking about. The images I linked to earlier are from a discussion here in 2013, if anybody took the time to read that thread that, I have already linked to, they would see the patience I had explaining exactly the same thing to an interested member over 8 years ago. 

Just because somebody is an expert in a field does not mean they have a deep understanding of the physics behind it! I know many professional potters, experts, who could‘the make a glaze if their life depended on it.

A while ago we had two ‘experts’ on macro arguing about crop cameras and dof advantage etc etc endlessly. I took a few minutes to actually test the suggestions of both and proved to myself and anybody else interested what the truth was. There is no dof crop advantage when shooting macro.




__





Canon to release a 100mp EOS R system camera next year [CR2]


You can also quite clearly see, in DPReview's DR comparison tool, that the D850 (higher pixel density) yields better results under a +5 or +6 push than pretty much anything else, even when starting at ISO 100. Again, one must ask the question, is what DP Review measuring actually DR, or is it...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 6, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> He was wrong. Assuming that skill at something automatically confers understanding is silly. Muscle energy is always in the mind of Olympic athletes because it is limiting to their performance. How many of those athletes can diagram the glycolytic pathway or understand the role of creatinine in muscle function? I’d guess not many. I cannot run 100 meters in 10 seconds, but I understand muscle physiology. The fact that @Dalantech takes astounding macro images doesn’t mean he automatically understands the technical aspects of DoF any more than Usain Bolt's astounding speed means he automatically understands the sliding filament mechanism.


He was wrong on several points. Not having understanding on certain points does not indicate a lack of understanding on all points. For DoF I would think anyone that has been successful has a good working understanding of it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> Yes, semantics and perspective of your point of view. You changed no data. If I view the oof focus picture from across the room it comes back in focus. You changed nothing.
> You say I can not be educated and insult, but you choose not to view it from a different point of view.


I changed nothing, but you did. By moving you changed the very aspects that define depth of field, the size of the picture in your field of view. Remember, two things impact dof, the hole the picture was taken through (aperture), nobody can change that post exposure, BUT the second part is how much of your field of view is the resulting image taking up. If you walk backwards, or forwards, that field of view changes and so the amount of ‘acceptable focus’ changes too.

This isn’t ‘my point of view’ it is the definition of the term depth of field. If I answer a maths sum correctly but you don’t do I have to ‘see the sum‘ from your point of view? No, I got it right and you got it wrong. I take no pleasure from the fact you got it wrong but I have two choices, work through it with you in the hope you get it and get the sum right or ignore you and go outside to play.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I don’t believe we are entitled to make incorrect statements, though we all do on occasion. I have made my own statement to counter the falsifies being put forward and they included examples, photos, and links to world respected sources, for my troubles I was accused of bullying and mansplaining.
> 
> Short blunt sentences give rise to less ambiguity, but even if I was short does that deserve name calling in reply? I certainly wasn’t rude. I asked people suggesting an alternative understanding of a core aspect of photography for links to support their ideas, how many did I get? Not one!


Over the last few years you have corrected my statements, sometimes the correction had nothing to do with the statement being made or subject. On this forum it gets to the point there is a discussion I want to be involved in, spend a few minutes typing a post and just delete it because I know someone will correct think something in it isn't just right. 


privatebydesign said:


> There is no dof crop advantage when shooting macro.


This is a correct statement.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> He was wrong on several points. Not having understanding on certain points does not indicate a lack of understanding on all points. For DoF I would think anyone that has been successful has a good working understanding of it.


I did not suggest he doesn’t have a good working understanding of DoF. I stated that he appears to not understand the circle of confusion. He claims that DoF is fixed at image capture, which is wrong because that ignores the role of CoC in determining DoF.

I’d say I was still waiting for someone to provide reputable support for CoC being irrelevant for DoF, but I know that’s about as likely as someone providing reputable support for the earth being flat.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I changed nothing, but you did. By moving you changed the very aspects that define depth of field, the size of the picture in your field of view. Remember, two things impact dof, the hole the picture was taken through (aperture), nobody can change that post exposure, BUT the second part is how much of your field of view is the resulting image taking up. If you walk backwards, or forwards, that field of view changes and so the amount of ‘acceptable focus’ changes too.


You did crop the picture.
You are not saying anything incorrect. 
But you are refusing to acknowledge or consider my point.
When you crop, print and decide how far away to view the picture, the DoF for that picture was already set inside the camera. 
You could say that the DoF is already set for all the various combinations you decide.



privatebydesign said:


> This isn’t ‘my point of view’ it is the definition of the term depth of field. If I answer a maths sum correctly but you don’t do I have to ‘see the sum‘ from your point of view? No, I got it right and you got it wrong. I take no pleasure from the fact you got it wrong but I have two choices, work through it with you in the hope you get it and get the sum right or ignore you and go outside to play.


Was that necessary?


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 6, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’d say I was still waiting for someone to provide reputable support for CoC being irrelevant for DoF, but I know that’s about as likely as someone providing reputable support for the earth being flat.


You are in Boston, were you not a Kyrie Irving fan when he played for the Celtics?
He may have changed his mind about the earth being flat.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> You could say that the DoF is already set for all the various combinations you decide.


So the DoF is set to a wide range of possible future values at moment of image capture? That’s like saying an analog clock is set to a wide range of possible future times the moment its battery dies. Nonsense.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> You are in Boston, were you not a Kyrie Irving fan when he played for the Celtics?
> He may have changed his mind about the earth being flat.


Regardless of his former or current point of view, the earth is shaped like the orange ball he throws so effectively.

I did hear Neil deGrasse Tyson poke fun at him during a lecture a few years ago.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 6, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> So the DoF is set to a wide range of possible future values at moment of image capture? That’s like saying an analog clock is set to a wide range of possible future times the moment its battery dies. Nonsense.


lol, I am sorry but that comparison was total nonsense.

Here is a link for flat earth backup:








Kyrie Irving on flat-Earth comments: 'I'm sorry' | NBA.com







www.nba.com





I think its bed time and have had enough fun for one night.


----------



## EricN (Oct 6, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> lol, I am sorry but that comparison was total nonsense.
> 
> Here is a link for flat earth backup:
> 
> ...


Umm... that doesn't back up the flat earth at all, he says he's not sure.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> You did crop the picture.
> You are not saying anything incorrect.
> But you are refusing to acknowledge or consider my point.
> When you crop, print and decide how far away to view the picture, the DoF for that picture was already set inside the camera.
> ...


Your point is wrong! My only challenge is finding a way for you to accept that. Why should I ‘accept your point of view’ if it is incorrect or, rather, counter to the definition of the term?

No, the depth of field was not already set because I, as the photographer, have no control over what you find acceptable sharp!

Was it necessary? Well I don’t know how else to phrase it. There is a term with a definition, I fully understand that term and several people in this thread don’t. It isn’t my opinion, it is a fact as determined by the accepted definition of the phrase, I can try to help or just not bother, so far trying to help/educate/correct the wrong hasn’t done much for me personally...


If I have 10/20 vision and my wife has 40/20 vision what is sharp to her is not sharp to me, my very measure of acceptable sharpness is different from hers. Ergo my perception of depth of field is different to hers even looking at the same photo on the same wall from the same distance.

Blows your mind doesn’t it? The same picture from the same distance can have different depths of field, areas of acceptable sharpness (the very definition of depth of field), for two people standing next to each other.

So to ‘standardize’ things a bit we work to CoC’s. Acceptable focus used to be defined as a person with average eyesight viewing an 8”x10” print from 12” away, but that was too narrow a definition given the vast differences in viewing distance and reproduction size and the move away from 8“x10” cameras and contact images from them. So a more universal way of working things out needed to be thought up, fortunately there are a lot of smart people out there and they came up with a way of taking the various format sizes into account. The diagonal of the format divided by 1500. d/1500. This gave a good approximation of the traditional ‘average‘ persons eyesight viewing an 8”x10” contact print at 12” and worked across all formats larger and smaller. But it is still based on the angle of view the final picture represents, move that image further away and your coc gets smaller in your view so you get more dof, move it closer and the reverse happens, you get less dof.

So answer me this, if the dof/coc/area of acceptable focus is defined as viewing an 8”x10” picture from 12” for a person with average eyesight, what happens to that dof/coc/area of acceptable focus if you move the picture further away? The depth of field changes, it increases, by the very definition of the term depth of field/area of acceptable focus.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> Over the last few years you have corrected my statements, sometimes the correction had nothing to do with the statement being made or subject. On this forum it gets to the point there is a discussion I want to be involved in, spend a few minutes typing a post and just delete it because I know someone will correct think something in it isn't just right.
> 
> This is a correct statement.


I do the same. Look at my posting history I am in and out because half the time I just can’t be bothered, after all I am the one trying to correct a misstatement here yet I am the one accused of bullying and mansplaning, though I don’t know who the woman is I was supposed to be doing that to....

I know it is, I was interested in the facts so I tested it and backed it up with images and detailed methodology so people could repeat it if they liked.


----------



## puffo25 (Oct 6, 2021)

Hi all, I am a bit confused about those newest camera bodies... I own a Canon R5.
I do mostly landscape, nature, documentary, travel, portrait, astro, panoramic images, including milky way, northen light, star trails images...
I am NOT interested on sport, wedding, wilderness, indoor/commercial/prop photography.
I am looking for the future as a second camera body but NOT sure if those 2 new cameras might meet my needs?
Do you think those might be a good second camera body or I should wait further for example for the possible R2 or R1?
Please note: I do not want the R3 as high speed and heavy camera body is NOT what I need. I do not want the R6 because compared to the R5 does not add much (yes, a bit more tolerance in low light, but that is all in essence)....
Any suggestion is welcome.


----------



## EricN (Oct 6, 2021)

Do you want a second body now?


----------



## puffo25 (Oct 6, 2021)

Not now. But maybe in 1 or 2 years, just as second body, in case I shoot a lot and do not always to switch btw lenses all the time...


----------



## EricN (Oct 6, 2021)

I'd wait and see what actually happens.


----------



## Dalantech (Oct 6, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> We can disagree, but only one of us is right. I suspect you don't understand the role of the circle of confusion (CoC) in determining the DoF. You may want to read up on that a bit. It's why, for example, an image viewed at a small size appears to have deeper DoF. Here's an example where the hair and flower appear in focus at small viewing size, but in reality only the flower is in focus. The reduction in size of the full image increased the DoF *because it changed the perceived sharpness* of the image. The same is true in reverse – enlarging an image results in a shallower DoF.
> 
> View attachment 200620


"...changed the perceived sharpness...", but the depth of field really did not change. It is like saying that a smaller sensor gives you more depth of field, when all it is doing is allowing you to fill the frame with the subject at smaller magnifications and the drop in mag is responsible for the change in depth. Or like the illusion of depth that I create when I twist my wrist to lay the area of acceptable focus over the subject's face. The depth of field chart for the lens that I use only takes into account magnification and Fstop cause those are really the only two factors that matter when shooting macro.


----------



## Dalantech (Oct 6, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> IF. But that's not the case. As a very simple demonstration, @unfocused stated that this statement by @Dalantech is correct:
> 
> 
> But, it is not correct. Depth of field is not fixed when the shutter button is pressed. To claim that a false statement is true is not giving accurate information. And he has declined to give any sort of definition. Those aren't semantics, unless claiming the earth is flat is just a semantic distinction from it being (roughly) spherical.


I like the example that @unfocused gave in another reply: Depth of field does not change when I take off my glasses and everything is equally out of focus...


----------



## Dalantech (Oct 6, 2021)

unfocused said:


> My rationale really has more to do with trying to make this more of a welcoming place. There are idiots who join this forum simply to make ridiculous statements and they deserve all the venom that they get. But there are others who get bullied for posts that are essentially correct. *Over the years, I've seen many well-meaning contributors (including some very high caliber photographers) driven away because a handful of participants scour the site looking for arguments.*


Over at the DP Review forum, a site that is a lot more toxic than this one, there are threads where people are wondering why forum participation is down. Some of them think it is just because more people are shooting with cell phones and not the increase of idiots who will say things, while hiding behind a keyboard, that they would never say in public.

Like you I absolutely hate getting into some of theses discussions because people will believe whatever they want and it is easy to rig a "test' for what they want to prove. Plus I have seen a lot of shooters driven out of macro by a community that is so hyper focused on absolute image sharpness that they cannot see the picture because the pixels are in the way. I have actually decided not to focus stack just to prove the pixel obsessed wrong 



Pollen Covered Mining Bee by John Kimbler, on Flickr


----------



## Dalantech (Oct 6, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> He was wrong. Assuming that skill at something automatically confers technical understanding is silly. Muscle energy is always in the mind of Olympic athletes because it is limiting to their performance. How many of those athletes can diagram the glycolytic pathway or understand the role of creatinine in muscle function? I’d guess not many. I cannot run 100 meters in 10 seconds, but I understand muscle physiology. The fact that @Dalantech takes astounding macro images doesn’t mean he automatically understands the technical aspects of DoF any more than Usain Bolt's astounding speed means he automatically understands the sliding filament mechanism.


I will concede that you can change how depth is perceived, but you really cannot change depth of field after the shutter is pressed. The manual for most macro lenses has a chart that lists the depth of field at certain apertures and magnifications, but those are the only two factors that are taken into account. Can an image seem like it has more depth because you made a small print? Sure. But that does not mean that the actual depth changed.

I do not focus stack (to be honest at this point I kinda refuse to) and yet if I did not tell you that I shoot single frames you would ask me "How many frames did you take for that stack?". The way that I create the illusion of depth is simple: I pick a spot where I want the depth to start, like this bee's mandibles, and then twist my wrist to lay the area of acceptable focus over the critter's head.



Pollen Covered Mining Bee by John Kimbler, on Flickr

The amount of depth that I get is no different than the depth that anyone else would get, shooting at the same magnification and Fstop. The only difference is that I can picture the depth in my head and I know where it needs to be to make the most of it. So I would argue that I do understand the technical aspects of DoF better than most of the macro community, especially since most of them have to resort to focus stacking. I even get more detail in my images than a lot of them, even though my shots are "diffraction limited", due to the quality of my light.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Your point is wrong! My only challenge is finding a way for you to accept that. Why should I ‘accept your point of view’ if it is incorrect or, rather, counter to the definition of the term?
> 
> No, the depth of field was not already set because I, as the photographer, have no control over what you find acceptable sharp!
> 
> ...


You do realize that I have not disagreed with you on any of the points or statements you have made other than the initial.

The one I initially pointed out was this:
_If you are of the opinion that DoF is set when you take the image you are wrong,_

Google pops up with this definition: _the distance between the nearest and the furthest objects that give an image judged to be in focus in a camera._
Interesting because that one says "in a camera"

Wikipedia says this: "*depth of field*_ (*DOF*) is the distance between the nearest and the farthest objects that are in acceptably sharp focus in an image."_

So I give you this example, if I take a picture with my R5 and then review it in the view finder and "judge" to be in focus, the DoF was set when I took the image and "judged" in the camera.

If my only intent is to print that image at a certain size and view it in a certain way then determine what is "acceptably sharp focus" the DoF was still set when I took the image.

In both instances I set the aperture in the camera to get the desired DoF, the image was captured and I merely confirmed the result when I reviewed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2021)

Dalantech said:


> The depth of field chart for the lens that I use only takes into account magnification and Fstop cause those are really the only two factors that matter when shooting macro.


This incorrect statement perfectly sums up your mistaken belief (and I suspect is the basis for the ‘real DoF’ @unfocused believes in).

I’ll give one more try, in the hopes that you, @unfocused, @Distinctly Average, @takesome1 and anyone else who erroneously believes DoF is fixed at capture or that there’s a ‘real’ (perception-independent) definition of DoF actually reads the following with an open mind and an honest attempt to understand.

The mathematical formula used to calculate DoF for charts and calculators is:




In that equation, _u_ is subject distance, _N_ is the f/number, _f_ is the focal length, and _c_ is circle of confusion. The values for _u_, _N_ and _f_ are set at the time of image capture. But those are *not* the only variables.

Math being math, it is impossible to calculate DoF without a value for _c. _The CoC variable is what defines ‘acceptable sharpness’ and it incorporates the parameters of output size, viewing distance and visual acuity. so obviously _c_ is going to vary based on factors that are all determined when the image is displayed and viewed, are not and cannot be set at the time of image capture.

Understandably, many photographers want a way to determine DoF ahead of time, but in reality that is impossible because it cannot be calculated for any image before the image is displayed and viewed (and because visual acuity matters, the actual DoF of any image can differ from one viewer to another).

Of course, those facts are completely unhelpful, and even if the true DoF cannot be known at the time of image capture, an approximation of DoF can be very helpful as a guideline for choosing the values —subject distance, f/number, and focal length— that can be determined before pressing the shutter button. Since the value of c cannot be determined before the image is captured, an approach commonly used in science is applied – making a set of defined assumptions that allow an unknown variable to be treated as a constant.

The industry-standard assumptions are an output size of an 8x10” print, a fixed viewing distance of 12”, and a visual acuity equivalent to 20/60 on a Snellen chart. Those assumptions allow assignment of a value for _c_, which enables calculation of a value for DoF. The specific value calculated for a given subject distance, f/number, and focal length is only the absolutely correct value for those specific viewing conditions. But since DoF is directly proportional to _c_, those assumptions are useful because they allow the comparison of _relative_ changes in DoF resulting from the photographer’s choices of subject distance, f/number, and focal length, i.e. the things that a photographer can control directly at the time of image capture.

Those set assumptions for output size, viewing distance and visual acuity are the basis for the DoF values in charts, calculators, and are also what lens manufacturers use in the tables they include in the lens documentation and for the DoF markings on lenses with a manual aperture control ring. If it’s a chart you downloaded somewhere it probably doesn’t have those assumptions printed on the chart, but if you read the supporting information for any good online DoF calculator, they are stated. (Well, the print size and viewing distance are stated, usually along with a reference to visual acuity which is almost never quantified but can be back-calculated from the CoC values used and some knowledge about the basis of the modern version of Snellen’s eye chart.)

Because the output size is arbitrarily set to an 8x10” print, DoF calculators incorporate the input (sensor) size and thus the magnitude of enlargement into the assumptions for _c_. That’s why DoF calculators have you select your sensor size (and back in the day there were different printed charts for 35mm, medium and large format film). It's also why cropping an image in post but viewing the output at the same size as the uncropped image (e.g. filling the screen of your display) will change the DoF of the image.

To sum up, 'real depth of field' can only be determined if the output size, viewing distance and viewer's visual acuity are known. A DoF chart/calculator provides a useful approximation of DoF values based on a set of assumptions regarding output size, viewing distance, and visual acuity.

Because I don't expect you to simply take my word for it, I'll provide some quotes from identified sources that confirm what I posted above.

"_It's important to note that DOF isn't a lens characteristic like focal length or aperture. It takes into account some subjective factors like print size and viewing distance._" "_DOF is at best a "fuzzy" concept, depending on subjective judgement of what appears to be sharp._"
*Bob Atkins DoF Calculator*​(Worth noting that as Bob points out, commonly used DoF calculators ignore the effects of diffraction on DoF, but it should be obvious given that the definition of DoF includes a term such as 'acceptable sharpness' and anyone who's tried to get more DoF by shooting macro at f/32 knows that diffraction affects sharpness.)

"_In order to calculate the depth of field, one needs to first decide on what will be considered acceptably sharp. More specifically, this is called the maximum circle of confusion (CoC), and is based on the camera sensor size (camera type), viewing distance and print size._"





A Flexible Depth of Field Calculator







www.cambridgeincolour.com




(The CIC calculator has a 'show advanced' feature that allows one to select the output size, viewing distance, and visual acuity, such that if you know ahead of time you want to make a large print you can adjust the calculated DoF values to reflect that pre-capture decision.)

"_Most depth of field calculators you find online give DoF values based on an accepted Circle of Confusion (CoC). This CoC results from the combination of the selected camera sensor and the following viewing hypothesis: Print size of 8''×10'' (20cm×25cm); Viewing distance of 10" (25cm); Manufacturers standard visual acuity (the viewer can perceive details which size is roughly 0.01”). Remember that the Circle of Confusion establishes the frontier between what is considered to be in focus and out of focus in an image. The Circle of Confusion Calculatorwill help you learn more about it. Well, these assumptions work pretty well in most cases. But when you want to change the viewing conditions, you need to adjust the Circle of Confusion accordingly to get the adjusted depth of field values._"








Advanced Depth Of Field (DoF) Calculator | PhotoPills


Get the total control over depth of field. This calculator allows you to use an adjusted Circle of Confusion to calculate the adjusted depth of field values according to your desired print size, viewing distance, camera sensor size and viewer’s visual acuity.




www.photopills.com





After reading the post above and the similar statements in just three of the many reputable sources on the subject, if you still believe that DoF values are determined only by factors set at the time of image capture I'd advise you to avoid any long ocean voyages because you may fall off the edge of the world.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 6, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Understandably, many photographers want a way to determine DoF ahead of time, but in reality that is impossible because it cannot be calculated for any image before the image is displayed and viewed (and because visual acuity matters, the actual DoF of any image can differ from one viewer to another).
> 
> 
> After reading the post above and the similar statements in just three of the many reputable sources on the subject, if you still believe that DoF values are determined only by factors set at the time of image capture I'd advise you to avoid any long ocean voyages because you may fall off the edge of the world.


Nowhere did I say "only by factors set at the image capture.."
I could make a false claim and twist a few words as well and say that claiming that what you are saying when you take an image it has no impact on DoF.
The reality is that it is a package deal from the shot you take till you finally view it.
PBD comment "_If you are of the opinion that DoF is set when you take the image you are wrong," _is an absolute, while his thinking may be carry merit the statement is not always correct.

So according to your statement, lets say I shoot an object 20' away with nothing in the foreground with my 24mm lens on a FF body at f/8. The DoF calculator gives 6.8' to Infinity. You are saying I would be wrong to expect the picture to have an acceptable focus throughout. You may be right, if the DoF is determined by someone wearing reading glasses 20' away.

Truthfully the entire discussion is semantics, especially when trying to apply facts and absolutes about "_DOF is at best a "fuzzy" concept"._

While the earth is not flat, you would be incorrect in claiming it is round according to Scientific American:








Strange but True: Earth Is Not Round


It may seem round when viewed from space, but our planet is actually a bumpy spheroid




www.scientificamerican.com


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> Nowhere did I say "only by factors set at the image capture.."


You did not, but that's exactly what @Dalantech and @unfocused claimed, and it's patently false.



takesome1 said:


> While the earth is not flat, you would be incorrect in claiming it is round according to Scientific American:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would be incorrect, if I had claimed that...but, I didn't.



neuroanatomist said:


> Those aren't semantics, unless claiming the earth is flat is just a semantic distinction from it *being (roughly) spherical*.


----------



## Deleted (Oct 6, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Yes, and I shouldn't allow myself to be drawn into this meaningless discussion. Same old flawed arguments and mansplaining from the same people. Same links to pseudo-science. Now, depth of field has become all about perception. I only need to take off my glasses and suddenly depth of field increases because everything looks to be of equal sharpness.
> 
> Not worth my time explaining. @Distinctly Average and @Dalantech you are still correct and don't be intimidated by the bullies on this forum who say otherwise.


Don’t worry, I fully understand that some people will argue black is white just before they get squished on the next zebra crossing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> Don’t worry, I fully understand that some people will argue black is white just before they get squished on the next zebra crossing.


Indeed, and some people will continue to argue that established facts are false or 'pseudo-science' while demonstrating a complete inability to provide actual evidence to support their erroneous views. That attitude has become even more popular with the rise of "fake news" that we've seen lately.


----------



## EricN (Oct 6, 2021)

Obviously, the Earth is a cube.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 6, 2021)

@privatebydesign, I wanted to give some time for the dust to settle before responding. 

You asked why I referred to the discussion as "mansplaining." I was using it in a generic sense to describe the practice (mostly of men) of "explaining" some fact or concept to someone who doesn't need or want the explanation. I felt, and still feel, that is an appropriate description of much of this discussion. Every participant in this discussion understands the topic and doesn't really need anyone else to explain it to them. There are disagreements over some aspects, but it really is splitting hairs. (That is my perspective and may not be shared by others).

I certainly know that I have a tendency toward mansplaining as much as anyone and I have two ex-wives who would happily attest to that. I apologize for any offense to you. I appreciate that you are well-intentioned and generally do not engage in the kind of attacks that others on this forum so readily engage in. 

This topic, like certain other topics (equivalence comes to mind) have been so thoroughly debated that there really is no point in further discussion. No one is going to win over anyone else and no one is going to benefit from further debate. There is enough truth to everyone's position to allow all participants to feel they are right and others are wrong. I'm going to do my best just to walk away from it and accept that no one ever "wins" an argument on the internet.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2021)

unfocused said:


> …no one ever "wins" an argument on the internet.


While that’s probably true, when on one side you have fact backed up with information from multiple, reputable sources and on the other side you have statements made with no attempt to provide external supporting information and an ‘I’m going to take my marbles and leave because I don’t want to hear an explanation’ attitude, it’s quite evident who “won” even if those making incorrect and unsupported claims never actually capitulate.


----------



## EricN (Oct 6, 2021)

Lets get back on topic and argue weather or not there will be an R7 and/or Rebel Rf.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 6, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> While that’s probably true, when on one side you have fact backed up with information from multiple, reputable sources and on the other side you have statements made with no attempt to provide external supporting information and an ‘I’m going to take my marbles and leave because I don’t want to hear an explanation’ attitude, it’s quite evident who “won” even if those making incorrect and unsupported claims never actually capitulate.



You quoted Bob Atkins earlier, here is a quote from his website: "_DOF is at best a "fuzzy" concept, depending on subjective judgement of what appears to be sharp."


Depth of Field Calculator


_
Wouldn't it be hard win an argument using facts to prove a "fuzzy" concept that depends on subjective judgment?


----------



## SaP34US (Oct 6, 2021)

Dalantech said:


> Over at the DP Review forum, a site that is a lot more toxic than this one, there are threads where people are wondering why forum participation is down. Some of them think it is just because more people are shooting with cell phones and not the increase of idiots who will say things, while hiding behind a keyboard, that they would never say in public.
> 
> Like you I absolutely hate getting into some of theses discussions because people will believe whatever they want and it is easy to rig a "test' for what they want to prove. Plus I have seen a lot of shooters driven out of macro by a community that is so hyper focused on absolute image sharpness that they cannot see the picture because the pixels are in the way. I have actually decided not to focus stack just to prove the pixel obsessed wrong
> 
> ...


Wow is that a bee with pollen on its antenna and nose?
The RF crop sensor sounds like with any luck it should be a great camera.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 6, 2021)

EricN said:


> Lets get back on topic and argue weather or not there will be an R7 and/or Rebel Rf.


My guess is that Canon will release the body that they believe will make them the most profit.
My first digital camera was the D50, it was billed as a bridge between FF and Rebel series. 
I am sure Canon will have some kind of similar strategy to draw people in and then get them to upgrade.


----------



## kaihp (Oct 6, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> My first digital camera was the D50, it was billed as a bridge between FF and Rebel series.


Are you talking about the 50D launched in 2008? - 15Mpix and horrible horrible chromatic noise. I picked it up as a replacement for my 2004-vintage 10D (6Mpix) which had vastly better IQ in my book. Too bad the 10D could only do ~1fps in RAW though  I kept waiting for a 7D2 and eventually caved in to a 5D3 in 2012. The IQ jump was fantastic between the 50D and the 5D3.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> You quoted Bob Atkins earlier, here is a quote from his website: "_DOF is at best a "fuzzy" concept, depending on subjective judgement of what appears to be sharp."
> 
> 
> Depth of Field Calculator
> ...


Not when my main point was exactly that – DoF is a subjective value that depends on factors that cannot be predetermined (at least, not easily) when the image is captured.

However, for those claiming that DoF is a fixed value that is set at the time the image is captured and is determined just by subject distance and aperture, yes…it’s hard for them to win an argument because Atkins is correct in that DoF is a subjective value. More generally, it’s hard for anyone to win an argument when they’re wrong about the relevant facts.

Edit: In fact, I posted that quote from Atkins’ website earlier. Hopefully you didn’t think you’d catch me out with it…


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> You quoted Bob Atkins earlier, here is a quote from his website: "_DOF is at best a "fuzzy" concept, depending on subjective judgement of what appears to be sharp."
> 
> 
> Depth of Field Calculator
> ...


So if we agree with Bob, and who can’t, how does a “fuzzy” concept fit into the argument of depth of field is set at capture?

If it was set at capture it would be comparatively easy to define. But it isn’t set at capture and isn’t easy to define, not least of which because of the scenario I laid out earlier where the same picture on the same wall at the same distance can have different depth of field characteristics for two people looking at it at the same time. Now that is fuzzy and completely agrees with Bob.


----------



## Deleted (Oct 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> So if we agree with Bob, and who can’t, how does a “fuzzy” concept fit into the argument of depth of field is set at capture?
> 
> If it was set at capture it would be comparatively easy to define. But it isn’t set at capture and isn’t easy to define, not least of which because of the scenario I laid out earlier where the same picture on the same wall at the same distance can have different depth of field characteristics for two people looking at it at the same time. Now that is fuzzy and completely agrees with Bob.


Problem is, this argument is akin to to a tree falling in the woods, does it still fall if nobody is there to see it? Red is not red to everyone, blue is not blue to everyone. We all perceive the world around us in a different way. We are all individuals (“I’m not”). Does our perception alter the physical properties of a subject? Does less red light get reflected from a tree just because the viewer is colour blind? A print does not change its properties based on the viewer, only our tiny brains change the perception.

Oddly, just as I was writing that a notification popped up on my iPad saying “Why is Mars red?”. To my colleague in the office it isn’t as he cannot see red, well the colour red are least. He really does see red when he is behind the wheel and an Audi is 3mm from his rear bumper.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> Problem is, this argument is akin to to a tree falling in the woods, does it still fall if nobody is there to see it? Red is not red to everyone, blue is not blue to everyone. We all perceive the world around us in a different way. We are all individuals (“I’m not”). Does our perception alter the physical properties of a subject? Does less red light get reflected from a tree just because the viewer is colour blind? *A print does not change its properties based on the viewer*, *only our tiny brains change the perception.*
> 
> Oddly, just as I was writing that a notification popped up on my iPad saying “Why is Mars red?”. To my colleague in the office it isn’t as he cannot see red, well the colour red are least. He really does see red when he is behind the wheel and an Audi is 3mm from his rear bumper.


EXACTLY! And as by all definitions depth of field is determined by what is acceptably sharp, acceptable sharp changes as you get closer or further away from a print.

The print does not change, our perception of the print including the acceptably sharp parts of it, changes. At last you get it.


----------



## Deleted (Oct 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> EXACTLY! And as by all definitions depth of field is determined by what is acceptably sharp, acceptable sharp changes as you get closer or further away from a print.
> 
> The print does not change, our perception of the print including the acceptably sharp parts of it, changes. At last you get it.


You still make assumptions


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> So if we agree with Bob, and who can’t, how does a “fuzzy” concept fit into the argument of depth of field is set at capture?


Perhaps like this.
The subjective judgment that determines what is sharp is your own.
Knowing that a certain lens at a certain aperture always gives you the same results.
Knowing the parameters of how the picture is going to be viewed, sized etc. in advance and of course you are the one setting the standard for what is in focus.
Experience.

I posted this in an earlier post:

_"lets say I shoot an object 20' away with nothing in the foreground with my 24mm lens on a FF body at f/8. The DoF calculator gives 6.8' to Infinity."_

I would be very certain that with those given parameters I would obtain the results I expect.

So from your point of view, when I looked at the picture the DoF was determined.
I believe the outcome was set at capture, because I only intended the picture for one use and size.
If I start cropping, printing large or someone else determining what is acceptably sharp then the fuzzy concept comes in to play.


----------



## EricN (Oct 6, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> You still make assumptions


Soooo, you don't get it?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> You still make assumptions


My assumption is dof is subjective, because the definition of dof has a subjective element.

You are the one who brought the subjectivity of color into the conversation, I agreed and embraced that. The colors you and I perceive from the same print when standing next to each other are almost certainly different, we agree. Why can’t you take that one extra step and consider the fact that out perception of acceptably sharp is also different?


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 6, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Edit: In fact, I posted that quote from Atkins’ website earlier. Hopefully you didn’t think you’d catch me out with it…


No, not at all. I had went back to your earlier post before I pulled up his website.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> If I start cropping, printing large or someone else determining what is acceptably sharp then the concept maybe fuzzy comes in to play.


You can’t ever determine the exact crop, reproduction size AND viewing distance of your predetermined image, therefore you cannot ‘set’ the dof at exposure.

All you are doing at exposure is setting parameters that will give you the dof IF the image is not cropped, is reproduced at one size and viewed from one distance. Sure you can do that but it still doesn’t address the FACT that dof changes as the print size/viewing distance changes. 

You say dof is determined at capture, but that does not allow for the subjective nature of the definition of the word. Accepting that at capture your settings will equate to one specific output size and viewing distance is a simple way of achieving ‘acceptable’ results, but it isn’t the definition of dof and understanding and accepting the truth about the ‘fuzzy’ nature of the subject helps when we push ourselves.

I use a 20mp camera and have several interstate billboards that use images from that 20mp camera. By now we all must agree that viewing distance/reproduction size is a factor in resolution? Why then is it such a leap to accept dof is also impacted by viewing distance/reproduction size?

Did anybody do what I suggested earlier and make a full screen image fuzzy then view it on a phone screen? This concept is SO easy to prove to yourself I cannot understand why people don’t just take 2 minutes to prove it to themselves, this is a vision based question and forum!


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> You can’t ever determine the exact crop, reproduction size AND viewing distance of your predetermined image, therefore you cannot ‘set’ the dof at exposure.
> 
> All you are doing at exposure is setting parameters that will give you the dof IF the image is not cropped, is reproduced at one size and viewed from one distance. Sure you can do that but it still doesn’t address the FACT that dof changes as the print size/viewing distance changes.


I have a multitude of pictures that are printed without crop that I keep in display books that I occasionally go through and view at normal reading distance. 

It seems your two comments contradict. 

Again, I do not disagree with anything else you have said.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> I have a multitude of pictures that are printed without crop that I keep in display books that I occasionally go through and view at normal reading distance.
> 
> It seems your two comments contradict.
> 
> Again, I do not disagree with anything else you have said.


Even if you have your prints you view at your standard distance that still doesn’t address the subjective nature of individuals perception of ‘acceptably sharp’!

But I have never said you can’t work backwards and predetermine an output size and viewing distance to make sure what you want in acceptable focus is covered by your f stop, indeed that is exactly what dof calculators do. But that still doesn’t address the fact, and my point, that when those images are viewed at different distances the dof characteristics change.


----------



## Dalantech (Oct 6, 2021)

SaP34US said:


> Wow is that a bee with pollen on its antenna and nose?
> The RF crop sensor sounds like with any luck it should be a great camera.


Yes, it is high on its own supply


----------



## Czardoom (Oct 6, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Thank you. This is why I really want to exit this discussion. We are splitting hairs and I have no doubt that all the participants understand the concepts. I really have tried to avoid these discussions of late. I was drawn into this one because I felt that @Distinctly Average and @Dalantech were being attacked unfairly and I wanted to defend their statements, which are far more right than wrong. I am trying my best to follow a guiding principle that I will not initiate these discussions, but I will defend those with less experience on this forum who inadvertently wander into them.
> 
> My rationale really has more to do with trying to make this more of a welcoming place. There are idiots who join this forum simply to make ridiculous statements and they deserve all the venom that they get. But there are others who get bullied for posts that are essentially correct. Over the years, I've seen many well-meaning contributors (including some very high caliber photographers) driven away because a handful of participants scour the site looking for arguments.


Your welcome. I'm intentionally ignoring the 3 or 4 pages of continued arguing because obviously some folks just have to be right and won't understand the possibility that semantics is indeed at play here.

I think one way to look at it (obviously not the official right way...) is to understand that there are two aspects to this discussion. As photographers, we are often in a position where we want to make decisions on how in-focus and/or how blurry (sorry for the totally unscientific term) we want certain areas of the photo to be. We think of this as considering the "Depth of Field." We might use DOF calculators, DOF preview buttons or just our experience in making various decisions to manipulate this "Depth of Field." When we take the photo, the resulting level of sharpness is captured. If this was a film negative, the capture is complete and unchangeable. Disregarding the possible sharpness adjustments of digital files, the sharpness of the various elements of the photo are captured and set. This captured image and the various levels of sharpness at different distances from the focal plane or the shooter, is often referred to as "Depth of Field" (whether rightly or wrongly.

The second aspect to the topic of DOF, occurs when you view the resultant photo. Size, cropping, viewing distance all play a part in what is perceived to be sharp and how sharp or blurry the objects in the photo are. So, now we have viewing or perceived DOF - which is what the bulk of the discussion has been about. Some have argued that this is the only definition of DOF that matters, totally ignoring that photographers DO INDEED refer to DOF when discussing their intent of manipulating focus/blur when setting up the camera pre-capture.

And so, failing to see the semantic differences in these two aspects of DOF has led to endless arguing, bullying, and arrogant by design behavior on the forum. Anyone really surprised?


----------



## unfocused (Oct 6, 2021)

Dalantech said:


> Yes, it is high on its own supply


You've mentioned that you shoot without focus stacking. Perhaps you'd be willing to discuss your techniques in more detail. It would certainly be more interesting than the last 4-5 pages.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> So from your point of view, when I looked at the picture the DoF was determined.
> I believe the outcome was set at capture, because I only intended the picture for one use and size.
> If I start cropping, printing large or someone else determining what is acceptably sharp then the fuzzy concept comes in to play.


The ‘fuzzy concept’ is the actual, accepted and published definition of DoF.

Yes, you can contrive a specific situation in which you select lens and subject parameters then generate output of a specific size and restrict the viewing of it to a fixed distance and a single person, and in that specific, contrived situation the DoF could be determined at the time of image capture.

And unless the conditions you chose matched those used as the industry standard (you print at 8x10”, view at 12”, and have 20/60 vision), the values for DoF obtained from a DoF calculator/table will not be correct for your specific, contrived situation. 

But by the same token in another specific, contrived situation a broken analog clock shows the correct time twice per day.

A proper definition must be generally applicable.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Even if you have your prints you view at your standard distance that still doesn’t address the subjective nature of individuals perception of ‘acceptably sharp’!
> 
> But I have never said you can’t work backwards and predetermine an output size and viewing distance to make sure what you want in acceptable focus is covered by your f stop, indeed that is exactly what dof calculators do. But that still doesn’t address the fact, and my point, that when those images are viewed at different distances the dof characteristics change.


I agree.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 7, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> But by the same token in another specific, contrived situation a broken analog clock shows the correct time twice per day.


 Not in all situations, it could be broken in such a way that just makes it run slow.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> The second aspect to the topic of DOF, occurs when you view the resultant photo. Size, cropping, viewing distance all play a part in what is perceived to be sharp and how sharp or blurry the objects in the photo are. So, now we have viewing or perceived DOF - which is what the bulk of the discussion has been about. Some have argued that this is the only definition of DOF that matters…


It’s not ‘a second aspect to the topic’, it is THE DEFINITION of DoF.

“For many cameras, depth of field (DOF) is the distance between the nearest and the farthest objects that are in acceptably sharp focus in an image. The depth of field can be calculated based on focal length, distance to subject, the acceptable circle of confusion size, and aperture.”

The related terms ‘acceptably sharp’ and ‘circle of confusion’ used in the definition require the viewing of the resulting image by an individual.

A photographer may _approximate_ DoF in practice, adjusting f/number, focal length and subject distance to increase or decrease what viewers will eventually see as the DoF, but pressing the shutter button does not establish a fixed DoF that is a part of the image. Period. If in doubt, re-read the definition.


----------



## JohnC (Oct 7, 2021)

Hence why the dof calculators that were designed for film do not hold up in the digital age. “Our” acceptably sharp is quite a bit sharper than it was then.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> Not in all situations, it could be broken in such a way that just makes it run slow.


Sure, and someone with better or worse vision and longer or shorter arms than you could sneak a peek at your picture and make your carefully pre-determined DoF wrong.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 7, 2021)

JohnC said:


> Hence why the dof calculators that were designed for film do not hold up in the digital age. “Our” acceptably sharp is quite a bit sharper than it was then.


No, the dof calculators hold true, what happens now is people enlarge their images with no regard for the calculators base CoC.


----------



## JohnC (Oct 7, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> No, the dof calculators hold true, what happens now is people enlarge their images with no regard for the calculators base CoC.


well, yes, that is correct... but we as a group have changed the way in which we view images (even printed ones). Now far more of us like to study them closer. I on the other hand, always have lol


----------



## Rocky (Oct 7, 2021)

Just to throw another stone in the pond. The DOF scale on a 50mm Leica lens is not the same as a 50mm Canon lens. Because they use different number for CoC


----------



## kaihp (Oct 7, 2021)

Not sure I want to put myself into the barrage of fire here, but here goes.


Czardoom said:


> The second aspect to the topic of DOF, occurs when you view the resultant photo. Size, cropping, viewing distance all play a part in what is perceived to be sharp and how sharp or blurry the objects in the photo are. So, now we have viewing or perceived DOF - which is what the bulk of the discussion has been about. Some have argued that this is the only definition of DOF that matters, totally ignoring that photographers DO INDEED refer to DOF when discussing their intent of manipulating focus/blur when setting up the camera pre-capture.



What the definition of DOF silently ignores - and complicates the discussion - is that "in focus" and "out of focus" are not hard, binary, options> there is a gradual change of the sharpness from the plane (however warped) of (maximum) focus to minimum focus (either nearest or furthest away from the camera) in the image. The DOF formula is an accepted definition of where the change from what is deemed as "in focus" to what is deemed "out of focus" is, but still subjective.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2021)

kaihp said:


> What the definition of DOF silently ignores - and complicates the discussion - is that "in focus" and "out of focus" are not hard, binary, options> there is a gradual change of the sharpness from the plane (however warped) of (maximum) focus to minimum focus (either nearest or furthest away from the camera) in the image. The DOF formula is an accepted definition of where the change from what is deemed as "in focus" to what is deemed "out of focus" is, but still subjective.


Absolutely. As Bob Atkins said, DoF is “fuzzy.”

But hey, someone downloads a chart, that chart says shoot with a 100mm lens at f/8 and a subject 51 cm away, and everything 5 mm on either side of the focus point will be in focus. And somehow that’s the ‘real DoF’ and once you press the shutter button that pretty little 1 cm diameter flower will be forever enshrined in complete, crisp focus from the first petal to the last, no matter what happens after. Because there’s a chart. With numbers.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 7, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> But hey, someone downloads a chart, that chart says shoot with a 100mm lens at f/8 and a subject 51 cm away, and everything 5 mm on either side of the focus point will be in focus. And somehow that’s the ‘real DoF’ and once you press the shutter button that pretty little 1 cm diameter flower will be forever enshrined in complete, crisp focus from the first petal to the last, no matter what happens after. Because there’s a chart. With numbers.



If they are using the new APS-C R body we are discussing in this thread they may be disappointed.


----------



## Deleted (Oct 7, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> If they are using the new APS-C R body we are discussing in this thread they may be disappointed.


A crop R would be ideal for me. I like how a 60mm lens on a crop feels and looks. I spend a lot of time using a crop body with my 60 and MPE-65 lenses. Rarely touch my FF camera or the 100mm L IS these days. Here is a recent shot jus for fun. Amazing little bees. Just wish I had left a little more room on the right and less on the left. She only allowed me a few seconds before she flew.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 7, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> A crop R would be ideal for me. I like how a 60mm lens on a crop feels and looks. I spend a lot of time using a crop body with my 60 and MPE-65 lenses. Rarely touch my FF camera or the 100mm L IS these days. Here is a recent shot jus for fun. Amazing little bees. Just wish I had left a little more room on the right and less on the left. She only allowed me a few seconds before she flew.


Very nice.
Hand Held?


----------



## Deleted (Oct 7, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> Very nice.
> Hand Held?


Thank you. Yes, hand held. I only tend to shoot handheld as I find a tripod restrictive. Only time I use one if for long exposure stuff like Astro or landscape and those genres are a rarity for me.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 7, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> Thank you. Yes, hand held. I only tend to shoot handheld as I find a tripod restrictive. Only time I use one if for long exposure stuff like Astro or landscape and those genres are a rarity for me.


Actually I thought your framing and position is good. The eye hits close to the upper right line cross for the rule of thirds.


----------



## Dalantech (Oct 7, 2021)

unfocused said:


> You've mentioned that you shoot without focus stacking. Perhaps you'd be willing to discuss your techniques in more detail. It would certainly be more interesting than the last 4-5 pages.




I am almost always holding on to whatever the critter is perched on with my non camera hand, and then resting the lens on that same hand so that subject and camera are on the same "platform". I focus by sliding the lens on my hand, and can rotate the subject's perch to change the angle of it and/or get it looking into the camera. I will then pick a spot where I want the area of acceptable focus to start, like this Swallowtail Butterfly's proboscis, and then twist my wrist (the one holding the camera) to lay the area of acceptable focus over the critter's leading eye trying to get as much of its face in focus.



Swallowtail Portrait by John Kimbler, on Flickr

I call it the Left Hand Brace Technique and using it gives me a lot of control over where I am placing the area of acceptable focus. An angle that creates the illusion that there is a lot of depth of field is called a "magic angle" and when I first got into macro 15 years ago I would look for them. But now I create those magic angles with the way that I position the subject relative to the sensor. According to the manual for Canon's MP-E 65mm macro lens the depth of field for this next shot is less than half a millimeter -or less than half the thickness of a US dime for the metric impaired 



Resin Bee by John Kimbler, on Flickr

We are wired to look into the eyes of the animals that we encounter in order to gauge intent, and the eyes are the very first thing we look at. So the leading eye, or both eyes if the subject is looking directly into the camera, have to be in focus. If they are not then the entire image will be perceived as out of focus. Likewise if the eyes are in focus then the image is perceived as being in focus, so it is not necessary to get the entire subject in focus.

Also we use shadows and out of focus areas to gauge depth. Get everything in focus, and evenly lit (to avoid stacking artifacts), and the scene will look flat and that is one of the big reasons why I do not focus stack. I want to create images where it looks like the subject is popping out of the frame. My goal is not to make my photos look natural, but to keep them from looking unnatural because the suspension of disbelief also applies to still images. I want the viewer to be able to relax and just enjoy what I put in front of them, and scenes that look flat seem odd and out of place because that is not how we see the world around us.

Edit: Wanted to add that no one crops their images when they view them at 100% pixels and then prints those crops, or saves them to any device as wallpaper. Everyone who is looking for an image to print, or for wallpaper, is looking at photos edge to edge. So absolute image sharpness is a false metric and has nothing to do with image quality. But per pixel sharpness is an easy metric, there are formulas for diffraction but none for creativity, so a lot of photographers resort to focus stacking. Stacking comes with so many limitations that I would argue that it can keep a photographer from developing their creative side.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 7, 2021)

Dalantech said:


> I am almost always holding on to whatever the critter is perched on with my non camera hand, and then resting the lens on that same hand so that subject and camera are on the same "platform". I focus by sliding the lens on my hand, and can rotate the subject's perch to change the angle of it and/or get it looking into the camera. I will then pick a spot where I want the area of acceptable focus to start, like this Swallowtail Butterfly's proboscis, and then twist my wrist (the one holding the camera) to lay the area of acceptable focus over the critter's leading eye trying to get as much of its face in focus.





Dalantech said:


> I call it the Left Hand Brace Technique and using it gives me a lot of control over where I am placing the area of acceptable focus. An angle that creates the illusion that there is a lot of depth of field is called a "magic angle" and when I first got into macro 15 years ago I would look for them. But now I create those magic angles with the way that I position the subject relative to the sensor. According to the manual for Canon's MP-E 65mm macro lens the depth of field for this next shot is less than half a millimeter -or less than half the thickness of a US dime for the metric impaired
> 
> We are wired to look into the eyes of the animals that we encounter in order to gauge intent, and the eyes are the very first thing we look at. So the leading eye, or both eyes if the subject is looking directly into the camera, have to be in focus. If they are not then the entire image will be perceived as out of focus. Likewise if the eyes are in focus then the image is perceived as being in focus, so it is not necessary to get the entire subject in focus.
> 
> ...



Without a doubt the most educational post in the last 5 pages.
Thanks for sharing.


----------



## HenryL (Oct 7, 2021)

Dalantech said:


> I am almost always holding on to whatever the critter is perched on with my non camera hand, and then resting the lens on that same hand so that subject and camera are on the same "platform". I focus by sliding the lens on my hand, and can rotate the subject's perch to change the angle of it and/or get it looking into the camera. I will then pick a spot where I want the area of acceptable focus to start, like this Swallowtail Butterfly's proboscis, and then twist my wrist (the one holding the camera) to lay the area of acceptable focus over the critter's leading eye trying to get as much of its face in focus.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for that detailed response! As a newcomer to macro photography myself, your insight is very much appreciated!


----------



## Dalantech (Oct 7, 2021)

HenryL said:


> I am almost always holding on to whatever the critter is perched on with my non camera hand, and then resting the lens on that same hand so that subject and camera are on the same "platform". I focus by sliding the lens on my hand, and can rotate the subject's perch to change the angle of it and/or get it looking into the camera. I will then pick a spot where I want the area of acceptable focus to start, like this Swallowtail Butterfly's proboscis, and then twist my wrist (the one holding the camera) to lay the area of acceptable focus over the critter's leading eye trying to get as much of its face in focus.
> 
> Thank you for that detailed response! As a newcomer to macro photography myself, your insight is very much appreciated!


Thanks for taking the time to tell me!

I have tutorials at Deviant art and I blog about macro if you are interested.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 7, 2021)

@Dalantech thank you for responding. I didn't notice your links before so I'm glad to see that you have tutorials on your site. Thanks for that. And, I certainly agree with @takesome1 



takesome1 said:


> Without a doubt the most educational post in the last 5 pages.
> Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Deleted (Oct 7, 2021)

unfocused said:


> @Dalantech thank you for responding. I didn't notice your links before so I'm glad to see that you have tutorials on your site. Thanks for that. And, I certainly agree with @takesome1


I’ve learnt so much over the years from @Dalantech tutorials and blog as well as lots of great advice on other forums. I started macro in the film era and gave up as I just couldn’t afford it. Also the slow feedback didn’t make learning easy. So when I tried again a few years ago the superb advice from many really got me hooked. When forums work well they are a wonderful resource.

As for your gallery, I have really enjoyed looking through, particularly your bird shots. The mono heron is superb.


----------



## Dalantech (Oct 7, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> I’ve learnt so much over the years from @Dalantech tutorials and blog as well as lots of great advice on other forums. I started macro in the film era and gave up as I just couldn’t afford it. Also the slow feedback didn’t make learning easy. So when I tried again a few years ago the superb advice from many really got me hooked. When forums work well they are a wonderful resource.
> 
> As for your gallery, I have really enjoyed looking through, particularly your bird shots. The mono heron is superb.


Happy to help! When I first got into macro there were very few resources, but a few people took the time to help me and the tutorials and blog are my way of paying it forward.


----------

