# Small Eos 5D IV comparison to Nikon, Sony, Fuji...



## xps (Oct 27, 2017)

Found at: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a7r-iii/sony-a7r-iiiA.HTM#comparison

"The main outlier here is the 5D Mark IV, which due to its optical low pass filter shows considerably less fine detail than the other three cameras in this test. From a pure sharpness point of view, all three of the other cameras outperform the 5D Mark IV"

A7RIII: " ...but right now it looks like it is capable of quite a bit, and possibly earning the place of the most versatile full frame camera on the market. "

Where ist the 5DSR MKII?

Remark: interestingly, this site shares the same pictures like DPReview... They did the comparison on the same event....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2017)

On the other hand, the loss of sharpness due to an optical low pass filter is well defined, making it very amenable to correction with sharpening during post processing. Applying more than a small amount of sharpening to an image from an AA-less sensor produces artifacts. So, with _proper_ post processing ( versus the identical processing performed by review sites), there's really very little difference in practice when considering sharpness.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 27, 2017)

While, I'd expect that higher MP sensors will indeed resolve more fine detail, the choice of jpg images to compare them does not impress. The fact that different lenses were used also raises my eyebrows.

Its good though to have higher resolution cameras, not so smart though to compare low resolution sensors with high ones, and guess what, the higher mp sensors win. You only do that when trying to prove a point and hope that no one will notice the obvious bias in the test.


----------



## xps (Oct 27, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> While, I'd expect that higher MP sensors will indeed resolve more fine detail, the choice of jpg images to compare them does not impress. The fact that different lenses were used also raises my eyebrows.
> 
> Its good though to have higher resolution cameras, not so smart though to compare low resolution sensors with high ones, and guess what, the higher mp sensors win. You only do that when trying to prove a point and hope that no one will notice the obvious bias in the test.



I see your point. But does the "normal reader" sees the Bias?


----------



## xps (Oct 27, 2017)

But, despite these annoying comparisons, the A7RII (or in future III) combined with an 27-70 GM 2.8 lens is an great combo.
Met an Sony semi/pro workshop-group in the mountains. And they showed what´s in this body.

I´m waiting for such an lens from Canon too... 24-70 III...


----------



## AlanF (Oct 27, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> On the other hand, the loss of sharpness due to an optical low pass filter is well defined, making it very amenable to correction with sharpening during post processing. Applying more than a small amount of sharpening to an image from an AA-less sensor produces artifacts. So, with _proper_ post processing ( versus the identical processing performed by review sites), there's really very little difference in practice when considering sharpness.



You can correct for acutance post processing but you can't restore detail that is lost because of the AA-filter. My experience of using the 5DSR versus 7DII and 5DIV is that I get about an extra 10% resolution with telephotos from the absence of an AA-filter. 

There is a very nice article by Brandon Dube on the effect inter alia of AA-filters on resolution - (he uses OLPF as nomenclature) https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/10/the-8k-conundrum-when-bad-lenses-mount-good-sensors/
He points out that as the number of mpx increases, the importance of an AA-filter (OLPF) becomes less importance for Moire. I have just posted some photos from my 5DIV and one of those has some Moire, despite the filter - http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1280.msg693091#msg693091


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2017)

xps said:


> But, despite these annoying comparisons, the A7RII (or in future III) combined with an 27-70 GM 2.8 lens is an great combo.
> Met an Sony semi/pro workshop-group in the mountains. And they showed what´s in this body.
> 
> I´m waiting for such an lens from Canon too... 24-70 III...



Why wait?

The Canon 24-70/2.8L II already beats the Sony 24-70/2.8 GM.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 27, 2017)

Paid comparisons like this one worth nothing. You folks will be surprised the 1DX2 produces even less details, no kidding! That's definitely a proof Canon is making crappy cameras. 
*Why not to compare to a proper camera - the 5DsR???*


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 27, 2017)

xps said:


> Found at: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a7r-iii/sony-a7r-iiiA.HTM#comparison
> 
> "The main outlier here is the 5D Mark IV, which due to its optical low pass filter shows considerably less fine detail than the other three cameras in this test. From a pure sharpness point of view, all three of the other cameras outperform the 5D Mark IV"
> 
> ...



This test is full of issues.

Looking at the original JPGs you can see that the shots are not taken at the same magnification. There's around a 12% difference between the A7R3 and 5D4
Shutter speed for the FF cameras is 1/40s and 1/20s for the Fuji (remember this is a live model not a stationary test scene), they claim it was shot on a tripod but I'm a little skeptical of that due to the framing/magnification differences. They also didn't use a delayed release so there's going to be a small advantage for Sony since it's using a stabilized sensor and lens which will help combat the little shutter press movements that become visible when pixel peeping on high res sensors.
The shots are not actually 100% crops, they're upscaled (and maybe downscaled?) to some common size
There's also a major question of whether or not the focus is on which the author acknowledged not really checking in any meaningful way


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 28, 2017)

I love these comparisons.... by comparing apples to oranges, we have learned that bananas are better than grapes under certain conditions that we will not tell you......


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 28, 2017)

As many of us know, nothing is as good as a Sony sensor..... they are so good that they can put 15 stops of DR into 14 bit files.... Funny though, Hasselbad needed to go to 16 bits to fit in 15 stops of DR..... perhaps this means that they know how to do math......


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 28, 2017)

> It also borrows the A9's impressive trick of a truly live viewfinder display, at least up to 8 frames/second



And thus, mirrorless in sports applications is still a joke. Sony has no equivalent to a top of the line SLR.

To their credit 8fps at least gets them on the same level as the 8 year old 7d.

I expect Mirrorless to superceed SLR’s “someday” (the “Solid State” camera is still an attractive idea) but I also expected uninterrupted viewfinders shooting 20fps with an electronic shutter in anything above “entry level” by now.
At least they should be doing that in a crop mode. But no, Sony is all bark and no bite.


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 28, 2017)

9VIII said:


> > It also borrows the A9's impressive trick of a truly live viewfinder display, at least up to 8 frames/second
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Live view limit at 8 fps is only for the A7RIII. The A9 maintains 60 fps liveview all the way up to 20 fps burst mode.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 28, 2017)

raptor3x said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > > It also borrows the A9's impressive trick of a truly live viewfinder display, at least up to 8 frames/second
> ...



Good catch, so it seems the A9 has that right:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a9/sony-a9A.HTM


> the A9 aims to take it to the next level with zero viewfinder blackout, even when shooting at 20 frames per second, and a direct viewfinder image of the subject during tracking and capture.



Sony just has to make an A9II that lets people use the menu while the buffer clears (really slowly apparently).



> Cons
> 
> Sluggish power-on time compared to pro DSLRs
> Slow buffer clearing even with fast UHS-II card
> ...



Sony certainly appears to be trying very hard, I’m grateful the industry has a “disruptive force” pushing technical specs forward, but the end results coming out of Sony are still a calamity of odd decisions that make them look like a flailing infant of the industry.
I actually feel sorry for all the people who are blindly buying into this system.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 28, 2017)

In the end the A7RIII looks like it’s priced exactly where it should be, but the problem is the “marketing” of the crippled 10fps burst is selling people something they aren’t getting.

The D850 with a Battery Grip shooting 45MP at 9fps (that better be 14bit) is really the story of the year, but the marketing bias favoring Sony is still ridiculously strong.


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 28, 2017)

9VIII said:


> Sony just has to make an A9II that lets people use the menu while the buffer clears (really slowly apparently).



Yeah, it's bizarre to me that Sony didn't move to XQD for the A9.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 28, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> As many of us know, nothing is as good as a Sony sensor..... they are so good that they can put 15 stops of DR into 14 bit files.... Funny though, Hasselbad needed to go to 16 bits to fit in 15 stops of DR..... perhaps this means that they know how to do math......



And what's even funnier - DxO will confirm those 15 stops.


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 28, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > As many of us know, nothing is as good as a Sony sensor..... they are so good that they can put 15 stops of DR into 14 bit files.... Funny though, Hasselbad needed to go to 16 bits to fit in 15 stops of DR..... perhaps this means that they know how to do math......
> ...



Unlikely, early measurements show it performs exactly the same as the A7R2.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 28, 2017)

15 stops of DR thingyo is a Sony Marketing Department Black Magic :
I bet this is to do with the new Pixel shift multi shooting mode when camera will combine 4 images in one. kind of exposure bracketing / blending / HDR...


----------



## Jopa (Oct 28, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> 15 stops of DR thingyo is a Sony Marketing Department Black Magic :
> I bet this is to do with the new Pixel shift multi shooting mode when camera will combine 4 images in one. kind of exposure bracketing / blending / HDR...



Could be the case, like DxO's claim with their own DxO Uno camera in a multi-shot mode.
Theoretically for a perfectly still subject it's possible to do the same with any camera by combining multiple frames even without "pixel shift", which is pretty much useless IRL - leaves shake, water runs, people move, etc... It will probably work for interior shooting or portraits in a morgue?


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 28, 2017)

https://www.change.org/p/sony-remove-the-star-eater-on-sony-a7-a7s-r-mk-i-ii-and-a9-cameras

Somehow this hasn’t been pinned to the headlines of every photography related website for the last year.
Sony can’t do Astrophotography. Just, wow.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 29, 2017)

9VIII said:


> https://www.change.org/p/sony-remove-the-star-eater-on-sony-a7-a7s-r-mk-i-ii-and-a9-cameras
> 
> Somehow this hasn’t been pinned to the headlines of every photography related website for the last year.
> Sony can’t do Astrophotography. Just, wow.



Maybe that's how we should be approaching Canon, rather than grumbling on CR. 

Jack


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 29, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.change.org/p/sony-remove-the-star-eater-on-sony-a7-a7s-r-mk-i-ii-and-a9-cameras
> ...



OK LETS DO THIS!

https://www.change.org/p/canon-inc-the-greatest-producer-of-photographic-tools-ever-convince-canon-to-implement-the-120-megapixel-aps-h-sensor-in-a-reasonably-priced-camera


----------



## Jopa (Oct 29, 2017)

9VIII said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Signed!

I think we have a better chance to win by signing something more reasonable though... Like compile a list of sane features for the upcoming 5DsR2, otherwise it may sound like "Make Canon Great Again"


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 29, 2017)

Jopa said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



I totally agree. An ill conceived request in this kind of endeavor is destined to be rejected without a moment's thought. What is likely to happen though is that all of us collectively wouldn't even be able to agree on what's sane (reasonable) and of course that has to apply from the point of view of economics as well. This is quite different than a request to change some firmware in a camera. 

Jack


----------



## Talys (Oct 29, 2017)

Jopa said:


> I think we have a better chance to win by signing something more reasonable though... Like compile a list of sane features for the upcoming 5DsR2, otherwise it may sound like "Make Canon Great Again"



Canon needs a wall? ;D


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 29, 2017)

What’s unreasonable about asking Canon to give us a sensor that they’ve been demonstrating for the last decade?

Obviously they’re fully capable of producing it, any current sensor manufacturer is, the pixel density isn’t even very high compared to the tiny 20MP sensors out there.

The only thing preventing this from happening is the lack of memory speed, and then they just need the basic proof that there would be a market for it.
Such a camera would probably be limited to 3fps, 4fps would be 480 Megapixels Per Second and Canon hasn’t pushed anything close to that in a camera yet.
I’ve been shooting a 3fps Rebel for the last 5 years and I think it’s fine, I can still get shots of Birds In Flight, the lack of a high speed burst is not a significant limitation. The burst rating that Canon is willing to ship on a camera is mostly just a matter of marketing.

The most outlandish thing is the APS-H sensor, the worst part being it’s not in any modern product, but maybe they still have the mirror box tooling for the first 1D models sitting around.
Again, we know they can make it, it’s just a question of “why”.
It might work better to ask for a 96MP APS-C sensor, smaller is always cheaper, but the premise of APS-H is that it’s the largest sensor they can print in a single pass, it was Canon’s first digital sensor larger than APS-C for a reason.

If you want to push the limits, but not “over” the lmits, that’s what APS-H is for. The idea of a 156MP Full Frame body would actually be outlandish, and we know Canon has already produced this 120MP sensor, they can probably start pumping them out at a moments notice, it’s all a matter of finding a market.

The 6DII actually appears to be almost perfectly set up for APS-H, it’s smaller and it already has the crop Autofocus module, and it has the fully articulated screen that Macro shooters love so much. All it needs is a different viewfinder, or they could even keep the 35mm viewfinder and just use a focusing screen to outline the APS-H frame.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2017)

9VIII said:


> ...The most outlandish thing is the APS-H sensor, the worst part being it’s not in any modern product...
> 
> If you want to push the limits, but not “over” the lmits, that’s what APS-H is for.



APS-H is dead for good reason. It came about as a production compromise, one that's been obviated now. It's a crop format sensor with no dedicated lenses. An L-series standard zoom starting at 31mm? An 11-24L that effectively starts at 14mm? That's not pushing limits, that's hamstrung before even coming close.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 29, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > ...The most outlandish thing is the APS-H sensor, the worst part being it’s not in any modern product...
> ...



APS-H is not dead, it’s just sleeping.
The only reason I don’t have the Sigma Quattro H is that SA mount lenses are so hard to get (if you’re outside the U.S. or Japan).

There is a place in the market between Full Frame and APS-C.
Canon will protect the Full Frame market, you will never see a Full Frame body with a 100+MP sensor for less than $4,000. At least not for another 20 years.

This is not the 5DsMkII, and the 5DsMkII is not this.

The 120MP APS-H sensor makes sense precisely because it’s not competing in that range. Canon will not sell a high density Full Frame sensor without a heafty premium, the premise here is high density at a _reasonable cost_ and Full Frame is automatically out of the question, not necessarily for technical reasons (though 150MP is definitely too much for Canon’s current buffer speeds), but definitely for marketing reasons.

Go make your own petition for a 150MP Full Frame body if you like, that is not this camera.

The idea of a 120MP Full Frame sensor also compromises the pixel density, Pixel Density is actually more important than sensor size here.
Using a 97MP APS-C body is the next best option, heck I might even take a 1” sensor if they cut the price enough (I was very interested in the Nikon 1 series for its density), as long as we’re making a camera that doesn’t fit any traditional role there’s no reason to keep it in a standard sensor format. APS-H is what Canon has already functionally demonstrated, and it is very attractive as an upgrade to APS-C.
APS-H is appealing to the crop shooter and non-threatening to Canon’s Full Frame marketing. Perfect.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2017)

9VIII said:


> The 120MP APS-H sensor makes sense precisely because it’s not competing in that range. Canon will not sell a high density Full Frame sensor without a heafty premium, the premise here is high density at a _reasonable cost_...



Probably as reasonable as Canon's last APS-H line, the 1D-series. 

Well, petition away. Personally, I think pissing into the wind is more likely to yield results, your mileage may vary.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 29, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > The 120MP APS-H sensor makes sense precisely because it’s not competing in that range. Canon will not sell a high density Full Frame sensor without a heafty premium, the premise here is high density at a _reasonable cost_...
> ...



Reducing sensor size always reduces cost.
Again, the price Canon is willing to sell a given sensor at is more about marketing than fabrication anyway, but APS-H hits both points, it is both cheaper than 35mm and marketed differently.
Pitching an idea that runs counter to current marketing trends really would be futile.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2017)

9VIII said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not going to happen. I know that as a photographer, you (we) look at the 120 MP APS-H sensor, recall the 1D series, and dream of a future ILC. But really, that format was awkward…problematic on the wide end, and not crop enough on the long end compared to APS-C. 

I will say, I was wrong to state that APS-H is dead. Nor is it, as you say, sleeping. It's very much alive. The 120 MP sensor you're discussing was just a step on the path toward the 250 MP APS-H sensor they have now. But neither will find their way into an ILC, because while you're looking backward to an outdated and superceded ILC sensor format, Canon is looking forward to their future expansion and growth...and that's not in ILCs, but as Canon stated this past January, in the wide-field surveillance cameras for which Canon is developing the ultra high MP APS-H format. 

[quote author=last week's NYT]Japan's Canon Inc hiked its annual profit forecast for the third time on Tuesday on the back of expanding demand for "business-to-business" products from *surveillance cameras* to organic light-emitting diode (OLED) screen production equipment.

Canon, which also makes copiers and printers, forecast operating profit to soar by more than half to 350 billion yen ($3 billion) for the year through December as capital expenditure by manufacturers grows.

Coupled with a doubling of operating profit in the third-quarter, the upbeat outlook - which surpassed analysts' estimates - suggests *Canon's diversification from a global camera market under attack from increasingly sophisticated smartphones is paying off*.[/quote]


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 29, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


[/quote]

Yes....

Everything happens for a reason, and we (forum fanatics) are not made aware of those reasons..... it could be pure R+D, it could be moving towards a new product line such as surveillance, or it could even be to resurrect a old format.... At least to my way of thinking, the first two are both likely, but any attempt to carve out a new format between FF and 1.6 crop is very unlikely.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 29, 2017)

Talys said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > I think we have a better chance to win by signing something more reasonable though... Like compile a list of sane features for the upcoming 5DsR2, otherwise it may sound like "Make Canon Great Again"
> ...



Guys, it would really be nice if we could keep politics out of our threads. This has been one of the few forums on the net to get away from all that BS on both sides. Let's just keep it about cameras and gear.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 29, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > The 120MP APS-H sensor makes sense precisely because it’s not competing in that range. Canon will not sell a high density Full Frame sensor without a heafty premium, the premise here is high density at a _reasonable cost_...
> ...



Of all the things in the world to start a petition on....

Great idea if you want a camera that:

Has maybe 10 stops of DR.
Shoots at 1 FPS.
Must be used on a tripod.
Does not have the low light advantage of FF.
Does not have the reach advantage of crop.

;D ;D ;D


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 29, 2017)

What if substantive proof came out that the new Sony product is better in every category compared to Canon. Would that mean suddenly that all my photos would be poor, assuming they are properly exposed/composed? Would people start telling my, I see you're shooting with an inferior product?

As many have said, it's more about competition and envy and the difference the camera would make would easily be compensated by a good photographer's skill. Now, OTOH if an inexpensive Sony lens of say 800mm F5.6 came out, I'd be thinking, boy Sony could really benefit me! Or let's say all Sony lenses were half the price of Canon's.

I think disposing of good cameras and buying new ones for minimal performance gain is not logical unless you're rich and like the toys. When Neuro sad, the 1DX is fine I'll pass on the 1DX2, that was logical. 

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 29, 2017)

dak723, why did you have to point that out?! 

Jack


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 30, 2017)

dak723 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Actually in this scenario we’re choosing between 120MP APS-H and 97MP APS-C, it’s the same density with the same reach either way.
Of course noise would be worse than Full Frame, that’s the point, Canon needs this to make other more expensive products look better.

As I specifically stated before, memory speed is the primary hardware limitation. The 1DX2 gets a maximum “Megapixels Per Second” of 323MP/s, so if we’re assuming Canon wants to keep under that number then the 120MP APS-H sensor would only shoot 2.6fps, and a 97MP APS-C sensor would give 3.3fps. Given that Nikon is doing 405MP/s on the D850 I doubt the file size is actually a problem beyond how fast it fills the buffer, really they could do 120MP at 4fps and just keep the buffer down to 5-6 shots, which is about as good as my old Rebel, and it’s not a hindrance in most shooting scenarios.

The Tripod is already necessary for many of the applications where 120MP would be beneficial. Complaining about camera shake at this level would be like complaining that a Ferrari doesn’t perform well in the Baja 500.
In some cases a certain amount of camera shake would be useful to help eliminate Moire though. People might look at it as a waste of pixels but no-one maximizes their pixel level detail on all their shots anyway. You don’t run out and say the camera industry should stop using 20MP sensors every time you take a blurry photo.
It would actually be nice to have something that does keep up during that one moment you just happen to hold your camera perfectly still. Chances are most of the detail your lens is delivering is already wasted at the resolution you have right now.

And of course Dynamic Range is evil, it cramps my style, I always crush the last 3-4 stops of shadow detail in post anyway. <- That’s Sarcasm


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 30, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I guarantee if Canon were to release two versions of the 7DMkIII, one APS-C, and one APS-H, with the same pixel density across both, charging $300 more for APS-H, no one would buy the APS-C version.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 30, 2017)

The reason you’ll never see an APS-H sensor on a 7D is it would make the 1D obsolete for the vast majority of customers. In a sports body APS-H is too capable, Canon can’t risk it.
As a 4fps detail machine, that’s not threatening to the core market for their flagship body, so APS-H would be fine.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 30, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Jopa said:
> ...



I apologize, it was just a funny statement, which is probably an internet meme already. Really has nothing to do with politics. Canon may need a wall BTW - from Sony fanboys ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2017)

9VIII said:


> I guarantee if Canon were to release two versions of the 7DMkIII, one APS-C, and one APS-H, with the same pixel density across both, charging $300 more for APS-H, no one would buy the APS-C version.



LOL. Right, everyone would spend $300 more for the body, then hundreds to thousands more for the EF lenses they'd need because APS-H isn't compatible with EF-S. 

Must be some potent stuff you're drinking/smoking/snorting/popping. 

I notice you ignored the statements from Canon about why they're developing ultra high MP APS-H sensors. I guess 'the good stuff' helps you avoid reality, too.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 30, 2017)

9VIII said:


> The reason you’ll never see an APS-H sensor on a 7D is it would make the 1D obsolete for the vast majority of customers. In a sports body APS-H is too capable, Canon can’t risk it.
> As a 4fps detail machine, that’s not threatening to the core market for their flagship body, so APS-H would be fine.



If they simply make a high-res (100Mpx+) FF body - you can easily crop to APS-H or APS-C, or even 1" and still have plenty of resolution.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 30, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I guarantee if Canon were to release two versions of the 7DMkIII, one APS-C, and one APS-H, with the same pixel density across both, charging $300 more for APS-H, no one would buy the APS-C version.
> ...




EF-S lenses? Where? What lenses? You’re holding back the good stuff!

The only EF-S lens I have is the kit lens that I never wanted in the first place, and my Sigma 18-35A still worked best cropping a 35mm image down to a 4:3 aspect ratio. Not quite the same as APS-H but close enough.

Canon can stick any sensor they want in any body they want, putting the 120MP APS-H sensor in a 6D2 would be a weekend project for them.

You’re still ignoring the point of memory speed, that’s why 120MP is ideal for now and why 250MP wouldn’t work in a consumer product right now.
That has _always_ been the primary limitation, people don’t care about EF-S lenses, this wouldn’t be priced in Rebel territory to begin with. You’re acting like the 52MP sensor in the 5Ds is arleady in a $2,000 body.
As soon as that happens, fine, the market for high density APS-H would be mostly gone, but it’s not happening any time soon, if ever. APS-H is the best option.

The only thing that doesn’t work well with APS-H is your limited imagination.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 30, 2017)

Jopa said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > The reason you’ll never see an APS-H sensor on a 7D is it would make the 1D obsolete for the vast majority of customers. In a sports body APS-H is too capable, Canon can’t risk it.
> ...



You’re missing the point. “Plenty of resolution” isn’t good enough, this is about maximizing density. Like I said before, 97MP APS-C would be the second best option, there just isn’t any good reason not to use the full APS-H prototype as it was demonstrated.

AND a 100MP Full Frame body would cost $5,000 USD “Because Marketing”.
Marketing is one of the biggest advantages of APS-H, they can do things with it that Canon would never allow with Full Frame.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 30, 2017)

I'm sure it won't happen but from my few months of extensive 1D4 shooting I fell in love with that camera but could not accept it's rather poor high ISO performance and lower MPs since I was shooting the 6D in parallel. I actually wouldn't consider the loss of 11mm at the wide end too critical. I liked the reduced field of view with my 300 X2 but the AF was not that good.

I griped about it at ISO 800 where now with the 1DX2 I'm often fairly happy at ISO 3200.

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2017)

9VIII said:


> The only EF-S lens I have is the kit lens that I never wanted in the first place, and my Sigma 18-35A still worked best cropping a 35mm image down to a 4:3 aspect ratio. Not quite the same as APS-H but close enough.



Been taking lessons from AvTvM on your own importance in the market? Lots of 17-55 and 15-85 lenses used on 7-series bodies. Why? Because they're the right range for a standard zoom. That range lens doesn't exist for APS-H. 




9VIII said:


> Canon can stick any sensor they want in any body they want, putting the 120MP APS-H sensor in a 6D2 would be a weekend project for them.



Sure. So why haven't they? Because there's no market for it. 




9VIII said:


> You’re still ignoring the point of memory speed, that’s why 120MP is ideal for now and why 250MP wouldn’t work in a consumer product right now.



You're still ignoring the fact that Canon themselves stated they're developing APS-H for surveillance cameras. Reality can be hard sometimes, but at least try to deal with it.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 30, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:



> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > The only EF-S lens I have is the kit lens that I never wanted in the first place, and my Sigma 18-35A still worked best cropping a 35mm image down to a 4:3 aspect ratio. Not quite the same as APS-H but close enough.
> ...



Both of the lenses you listed are $800-$900 lenses. You save practically nothing shooting EF-S, while at the same time IQ on the APS-H sensor will be 50% better.
24mm on APS-H is 31.2mm, 7mm difference from the _widest_ EF-S Standard Zoom, big whoop. Your Standard Zoom EF lenses are _much_ higher quality, not to mention if you want wide there’s the SPECTACULAR EF 16-35f/4LIS shooting 20mm equivalent on the wide end:
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-16-35mm-USM-Lens/dp/B00K8942SO

And as long as we’ve got more resolution, you can easily crop the 35mm end to any framing size you want.
I suppose you think people should just “Crop Wider” on the EF-S lenses.

If we were talking Nikon or Fuji APS-C the argument might possibly hold some water, but this is Canon. Tell Canon to make a normal APS-C sensor in the first place.



neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Canon can stick any sensor they want in any body they want, putting the 120MP APS-H sensor in a 6D2 would be a weekend project for them.
> ...



Been taking lessons from AvTvM on your own importance in the market?

Canon (and every other camera manufacturer) are charging a hefty premuim for higher resolution sensors, those products are _incredibly_ popular, and any time you look at any forum for a dedicated crop system all you see is people asking for is bigger sensors.
You would have to be nearly brain-dead to think that “Bigger Sensor+Lots of Resolution=No Market”

Every time it comes up somewhere else the excuse not to use larger sensors is “x system doesn’t have the lenses”. Canon has the lenses, they’re the best lenses on the market, people are _far_ better off using EF lenses than EF-S.



neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > You’re still ignoring the point of memory speed, that’s why 120MP is ideal for now and why 250MP wouldn’t work in a consumer product right now.
> ...



Canon isn’t held accountable to your opinion of the company. Reality is they can make anything they want, and consumer feedback is a thing, it’s what drives half of the design decisions Canon makes (e.g. Flippy Screen on the 6D2).


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 30, 2017)

9VIII said:


> I guarantee if Canon were to release two versions of the 7DMkIII, one APS-C, and one APS-H, with the same pixel density across both, charging $300 more for APS-H, no one would buy the APS-C version.



Where do you get your number of $300 from? If you believe that they will take the additional production costs and pass that on at cost, you know zip about marketing. There is a $2,000 price difference between 7D3 and 5DIV so the price will be the north of half way between them.

A year before the APS-H was phased out, I was told about the upcoming announcement with the explanation that Canon wanted to reduce costs on running multiple formats now that high-performance FF had become financially affordable to the mass market. As his comments turned out to he true, I see no reason his explanation would not be either.
So tell me, why would they introduce a sensor size that they decided was a drag on production costs? Why do the marvellously innovative Sony and Nikon have a APS-H? Added to that I fail to see how much benefit APS-H would actually bring - it seems to me it is more nostalgia than any real-world practical advantage.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 30, 2017)

9VIII said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm genuinely perplexed by the whole discussion. What marketing advantages does APS-H have? How do you market that camera, especially to people who don't feel defined by, or care much about, sensor size?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2017)

9VIII said:


> Both of the lenses you listed are $800-$900 lenses. You save practically nothing shooting EF-S, while at the same time IQ on the APS-H sensor will be 50% better.



They are $800, so sure, the $900 difference to the 24-70/2.8 at $1700 is 'practically nothing'. : 




9VIII said:


> 24mm on APS-H is 31.2mm, 7mm difference from the _widest_ EF-S Standard Zoom, big whoop.



A 7mm difference from 24mm is a difference of ~30%. Personally, I find the difference between 24mm and 28mm to be very noticeable (for example, it was the main reason I upgraded from the PowerShot S95 to the S100). But that's just me, and unlike you I do understand that I am not representative of the overall market. However...Canon probably has a damn good idea of what the market wants, and consider that with the EOS M line, they updated their standard zoom from an 18-55mm to a 15-45mm. So it seems Canon believes the market wants their standard zoom to be wider. APS-H is pushing things the opposite direction.










9VIII said:


> ...not to mention if you want wide there’s the SPECTACULAR EF 16-35f/4LIS shooting 20mm equivalent on the wide end



So you think people want to take a spectacular ultrawide lens and use it on a camera that makes it less wide. Again, look at the history of ultrawide lenses. The also spectacular 16-35mm f/2.8L III lens we have now began life as a 20-35/2.8L, then became a 17-35/2.8L. Trend is wider, APS-H is the opposite.




9VIII said:


> You would have to be nearly brain-dead to think that “Bigger Sensor+Lots of Resolution=No Market”



Indeed. But in your head it seems that Bigger Sensor + Lots of Resolution = APS-H, whereas out here in reality-land, the bigger sensor is FF. 




9VIII said:


> Every time it comes up somewhere else the excuse not to use larger sensors is “x system doesn’t have the lenses”. Canon has the lenses, they’re the best lenses on the market, people are _far_ better off using EF lenses than EF-S.



No, Canon doesn't have the lenses for APS-H. They have lenses for full frame, and lenses for APS-C. The prototypical standard 24-70mm translated to APS-H would be 18.5-53.8mm...which is essentially an 18-55mm lens. Except that Canon doesn't make one of those for APS-H or FF.




9VIII said:


> Canon isn’t held accountable to your opinion of the company. Reality is they can make anything they want, and consumer feedback is a thing, it’s what drives half of the design decisions Canon makes (e.g. Flippy Screen on the 6D2).



Of course Canon isn't held accountable to my opinion. But it's not my opinion that Canon is developing high MP APS-H sensors for surveillance application, and not for consumer photography applications...that is Canon's own statement.

You're absolutely correct that consumer feedback is a thing. You have absolutely no idea how much of Canon's design decisions it drives (nor do I, only Canon does). But certainly it matters to them. 

So, in light of that, let's consider consumer feedback on APS-H. You launched your petition over 24 hours ago, and in that time well over 1,000 people have viewed this topic. So far, a grand total of four people have signed your petition. Four. Since you seem to like equations, try this one: Consumer Feedback + Four People = Canon Doesn't Give a Crap.

I think we're done here. At least, I am. If you want to go on living in a fantasy world and spouting ridiculous BS, that's your choice.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 30, 2017)

scyrene said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Jopa said:
> ...



Look at the 5Ds, now tell me what they’re going to charge for something with twice as much resolution.



Mikehit said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I guarantee if Canon were to release two versions of the 7DMkIII, one APS-C, and one APS-H, with the same pixel density across both, charging $300 more for APS-H, no one would buy the APS-C version.
> ...



Has someone posted the price of the 7D3?
The D500 is $1,900, not ~$1,500 like the (discontinued) *7D2*. It’s a $1,400 difference between the 5D4 and its nearest crop body competitor.
Fine, make it $500 difference, APS-H in a 7D body would be the hottest thing since autofocus was invented.

What Canon said 10 years ago is going to have almost no relevance to the market today. The moment Canon thinks they need an edge, they can push out APS-H and the world will call it genius move. They CANNOT move to Full Frame or the 1D would become totally pointless.
Same thing with a high MP crop body and the 5Ds, the 5Ds would be totally pointless if they gave another Full Frame body more resolution and sold it for less. That’s a marketing principle even someone who’s half brain-dead can understand.


But that’s all totally beside the point, You guys are all running around screaming “APS-H is dead” when I don’t even think it’s necessary, it’s not the point ot the petition, the point is *pixel density*.

Forget APS-H exists and make this all about a 97MP APS-C sensor.

Neuro really just hates the idea of high resolution sensors and he’s using APS-H as a straw man to say this is all a bad idea.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 30, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Both of the lenses you listed are $800-$900 lenses. You save practically nothing shooting EF-S, while at the same time IQ on the APS-H sensor will be 50% better.
> ...



Neuro, you’re embarrassing yourself, quit while you have some dignity left.

$769 https://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-105mm-USM-Zoom-Lens/dp/B000B84KAW/
$899 https://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-70mm-4-0L-Standard-Zoom/dp/B00A2BVAN8/

And again, the 16-35 only costs $999.



neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > 24mm on APS-H is 31.2mm, 7mm difference from the _widest_ EF-S Standard Zoom, big whoop.
> ...



Been taking lessons from AvTvM on your own importance in the market?



neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > ...not to mention if you want wide there’s the SPECTACULAR EF 16-35f/4LIS shooting 20mm equivalent on the wide end
> ...



Practically every picture captured today is cropped in post.
Using APS-H there would actually be no loss in quality from cropping until you go past 56mm, which is the same sensor area as APS-C.

20-56mm with vastly improved IQ is a way better deal than any EF-S Standard Zoom lens.



neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > You would have to be nearly brain-dead to think that “Bigger Sensor+Lots of Resolution=No Market”
> ...



Out in Reality-Land a 150MP Full Frame body would sell for $8,000 because Canon has already demonstrated with the 5Ds that they will charge a hefty premium for high resolution Full Frame sensors.
APS-H avoids that dilemma.

You’ve purposefully ignored that point through the entire thread and your credibility is falling like a rock.



neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Every time it comes up somewhere else the excuse not to use larger sensors is “x system doesn’t have the lenses”. Canon has the lenses, they’re the best lenses on the market, people are _far_ better off using EF lenses than EF-S.
> ...



EF lenses are infinitely superior on APS-H compared to EF-S lenses on APS-C. Your fetish with lenses fitting an exact range doens’t apply to the market in general.

Been taking lessons from AvTvM on your own importance in the market?



neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Canon isn’t held accountable to your opinion of the company. Reality is they can make anything they want, and consumer feedback is a thing, it’s what drives half of the design decisions Canon makes (e.g. Flippy Screen on the 6D2).
> ...



It is still nothing but your opinion because people change their mind all the time.



neuroanatomist said:


> So, in light of that, let's consider consumer feedback on APS-H. You launched your petition over 24 hours ago, and in that time well over 1,000 people have viewed this topic. So far, a grand total of four people have signed your petition. Four. Since you seem to like equations, try this one: Consumer Feedback + Four People = Canon Doesn't Give a Crap.
> 
> I think we're done here. At least, I am. If you want to go on living in a fantasy world and spouting ridiculous BS, that's your choice.




The other 996 people have just been scared off by your incessant belligerent ignorance.

Now everyone probably thinks of you as the “anti-innovation” man.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 30, 2017)

I’ll say it again, the moment Canon puts the 5Ds sensor on a $2,000 body, the market for a high resolution APS-H sensor disappears.
Until that point, APS-H is fully relevant to the current market situation as a way to up-sell existing crop shooters but not cannibalize the premium that Canon currently gives to Full Frame.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 30, 2017)

Jopa said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...


 ;D


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 30, 2017)

I sit up all night dreaming about a 120mp APS-H sensor and a steel I-beam tripod to keep away the camera shake (anchored in concrete). I have a commission to make a billboard to cover Mt. Rushmore. : I wonder if lenses will also be released to go along with that?

A 120 mega pixel hand held camera would be like driving a monster truck: Terrible road manners and only good for running things over. Not pretty at all. Worse than that: It's like the guy who'll never take his 4x4 off road. He bought it just in case and for hoots.

The great thing is that I don't have to properly frame anything. That is enough mp that I can just shoot away and worry about composition in post. 

The never ending drive for more and more mp goes on and on, whether we need them or not. I can think of dozens of other things other than megapixels that would be far more useful.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2017)

scyrene said:


> I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm genuinely perplexed by the whole discussion. What marketing advantages does APS-H have? How do you market that camera, especially to people who don't feel defined by, or care much about, sensor size?



You don't. Based on their sales records, Canon clearly knows their market, and Canon clearly has the ability to make such a camera, but they abandoned the format half a decade ago. 

But who knows, perhaps if the number of petition signers grows to the point where 9VIII needs to use his toes in addition to his fingers to count them, maybe Canon will take notice. Of course, if they do take notice…they'll do so by posting it over the company water cooler so everyone can have a good laugh.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 30, 2017)

9VIII said:


> But that’s all totally beside the point, You guys are all running around screaming “APS-H is dead” when I don’t even think it’s necessary, it’s not the point ot the petition, the point is *pixel density*.
> 
> Forget APS-H exists and make this all about a 97MP APS-C sensor.



What are you on about. If your petition is about pixel density why the hell does it talk about a long-dead format?
And if it is about pixel density, a 97MP APS-C is not the same density as 100MP APS-H. Why not a 100MP FF sensor?

Do you have any idea what you are on about?



> The D500 is $1,900, not ~$1,500 like the (discontinued) 7D2. It’s a $1,400 difference between the 5D4 and its nearest crop body competitor.


Is the 7D2 discontinued? News to me
At B&H the 7D2 is 1,400, the 5DIV is $3,500 - difference is $2,000, Do you use different maths in your universe? Or do you think it reasonable that a Canon buyer looks at the price of Nikon cameras to see how much an upgrade costs? Weird to say the least...


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 31, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> At B&H the 7D2 is 1,400...








And of course the 7D3 will be more expensive at launch, both because Canon will equip it better, and just because prices always go up on new models.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 31, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > But that’s all totally beside the point, You guys are all running around screaming “APS-H is dead” when I don’t even think it’s necessary, it’s not the point ot the petition, the point is *pixel density*.
> ...



Because that is the sensor that *Canon* has been demonstrating!



Mikehit said:


> And if it is about pixel density, a 97MP APS-C is not the same density as 100MP APS-H. Why not a 100MP FF sensor?



You are clearly trying to do nothing but obfuscate the situation. Read the thread again, I’ve explained it half a dozen times already.
If you want me to type out another explanation you have to sign the petition first.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 31, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I sit up all night dreaming about a 120mp APS-H sensor and a steel I-beam tripod to keep away the camera shake (anchored in concrete). I have a commission to make a billboard to cover Mt. Rushmore. : I wonder if lenses will also be released to go along with that?
> 
> A 120 mega pixel hand held camera would be like driving a monster truck: Terrible road manners and only good for running things over. Not pretty at all. Worse than that: It's like the guy who'll never take his 4x4 off road. He bought it just in case and for hoots.
> 
> ...



Did my petition suddenly get changed to “Sign here to make Canon abandon low resolution sensors”?

I’m sorry to say it CanonFanBoy but your post is slanderous. It’s really sad.
Everyone shooting focal lengh limited scenarios right now needs more resolution to get better pictures. I have a tripod that holds 50lbs+, I have the biggest ballhead available, and any high quality Macro lens today is giving oodles more resolution than modern cameras can see, but for whatever reason a brooding dark swarm of belligerent “Photographers” such as yourself feel so threatened by what you don’t understand that you run out to scream “Nobody needs this!” Just because you have no interest in the subject.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 31, 2017)

CanonFanBoy, Shame On You!
Mikehit, Shame On You!
neuroanatomist *Shame On You!*

Why don’t you all run off and tell some Landscape photographer that more dynamic range is bad, or go whine to a Portrait shooter about how choosing lenses for Bokeh is useless, or go argue with an Astro shooter about how pointed stars look fine, or go troll a Sports shooter about how Manual Focus is better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2017)

:


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 31, 2017)

Quite the thread. All over the map. This request is not going to find favor with Canon so there is no need to get worked up about it. 

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 31, 2017)

9VIII said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



For their security cameras :


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 31, 2017)

9VIII said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I sit up all night dreaming about a 120mp APS-H sensor and a steel I-beam tripod to keep away the camera shake (anchored in concrete). I have a commission to make a billboard to cover Mt. Rushmore. : I wonder if lenses will also be released to go along with that?
> ...



I never said, "Nobody needs this." What I am saying is that if some people are having problems with camera shake with a 50mp 5DSR that a 120mp camera will be a hoot for people like that. It would sure be a problem for me. BTW: I have tripods too. That ain't the point.

Notice one thing, Bubba: Security cameras tend to be mounted to an immovable structure. At 120mp, that will be very important. Then again... maybe 480mp would be a better target, or how about 960mp, 1920mp?

Far as I can tell you are the only one running around screaming. :'( 



9VIII said:


> CanonFanBoy, Shame On You!
> Mikehit, Shame On You!
> neuroanatomist *Shame On You!*
> 
> Why don’t you all run off and tell some Landscape photographer that more dynamic range is bad, or go whine to a Portrait shooter about how choosing lenses for Bokeh is useless, or go argue with an Astro shooter about how pointed stars look fine, or go troll a Sports shooter about how Manual Focus is better.



Tell people that DR isn't important? That's my point! There are a dozen things more important to the vast majority of us than 120mp. 120mp has nothing to do with photo quality unless one is printing huuuuugggggeeeee! On a 20x30 print I don't believe a person is going to see the difference between a 50mp and 120mp photo. You ain't shooting billboards are you?

I'd rather see better DR, deeper buffers, faster FPS, better lenses, etc. Right now you seem to think 120mp APS-H sensor is the holy grail. For what? Bragging rights? Because it would be considered exotic?

After all this, I have to wonder what your drive for an APS-H sensor is all about.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 31, 2017)

9VIII said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I sit up all night dreaming about a 120mp APS-H sensor and a steel I-beam tripod to keep away the camera shake (anchored in concrete). I have a commission to make a billboard to cover Mt. Rushmore. : I wonder if lenses will also be released to go along with that?
> ...



Slanderous? Really? So sue me. Good luck with that.

My post had to do with me. It wasn't about you. The race for more megapixels DOES keep going "whether we need them or not."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> After all this, I have to wonder what your drive for an APS-H sensor is all about.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 1, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'd rather see better DR, deeper buffers, faster FPS, better lenses, etc. Right now you seem to think 120mp APS-H sensor is the holy grail. For what? Bragging rights? Because it would be considered exotic?



It’s incredible that you can be so dedicated to your willful ignorance.
I’ve explained it half a dozen times, the petition explains it perfectly, but _you_ run around blindfolded, screaming that the world is coming to an end because you absolutely refuse to hear anything but your own delusional voice.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, in light of that, let's consider consumer feedback on APS-H. You launched your petition over 24 hours ago, and in that time well over 1,000 people have viewed this topic. So far, a grand total of four people have signed your petition. Four.



And here we are, two more days and >3000 more topic views later. Four.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 1, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/watch-canon-show-off-a-120mp-sensor-eos-5ds-in-photokina-tech-demo-95831


> check out Canon’s tech demo with AP where they show off the sort of thing they hope to achieve in the future, in the shape of a Canon EOS 5DS kitted out with an impressive 120-million-pixel APS-H size imaging sensor.



Additionally, Canon didn’t buy the Swedish security company Axis until 2015, and they’ve been showing this sensor since 2010: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2773376832/canon120mpsensor

This was never about security products until they bought their way into that market a few years ago.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 1, 2017)

Anyone who can't take world class photos with the 5DIV is an overmedicated dullard.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 1, 2017)

9VIII said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



And of course you forgot to quote the important bit:



> They stress that this is not a camera in actual development, just an indication of where imaging technology could go



Absolutely no indication they are looking at APS-H for DSLR. It was demonstration of technology, not sensor size.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 1, 2017)

9VIII said:


> I guarantee if Canon were to release two versions of the 7DMkIII, one APS-C, and one APS-H, with the same pixel density across both, charging $300 more for APS-H, no one would buy the APS-C version.



How sure are you about that? The 7D2 is the fastest crop camera in the Canon lineup.... make it APS-H and all of a sudden you have a bigger mirror, and that means a slower mirror..... and there goes that 10FPS burst speed....

Put in an APS-H sensor at the same density and you just made all the files 1.5 times larger..... now your buffer does not hold as many files, it takes more time to process those files, and as a result, your camera slows down.

More photocells in a larger sensor, a heavier mirror, and more processing time required means reduced battery life....

oh.... and the lenses..... forget that 17-55 at F2.8..... you want a fast walk around lens? better start saving up for a 24-70F2.8.... you can't use any of those reasonably priced crop lenses any more because your camera now needs FF lenses.... better save up a lot more money!

Canon could have done this at any time they wanted to. Yes, it would be a trivial problem..... Now ask yourself if maybe there is a reason why they didn't....


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 1, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I guarantee if Canon were to release two versions of the 7DMkIII, one APS-C, and one APS-H, with the same pixel density across both, charging $300 more for APS-H, no one would buy the APS-C version.
> ...



Read our discussion on lenses over the last few pages. EF-S does not save money.

The speed of the mirror would change a bit, all depending on how much Canon wants to invest in the mirror box, but that’s not really much of an issue. 7/8fps is fine.
Filling the buffer 1.5x faster is not a problem, the buffer sizes today are quite generous.

Memory Card Speed is the Primary Issue. If they give it UHS-II no-one would care about the smaller buffer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Canon could have done this at any time they wanted to. Yes, it would be a trivial problem..... Now ask yourself if maybe there is a reason why they didn't....



Spoilsport. Isn't it more fun to ask why they _should_?


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 1, 2017)

9VIII said:


> The speed of the mirror would change a bit, all depending on how much Canon wants to invest in the mirror box, but that’s not really much of an issue.



So you are agreeing then that the price difference will be more than the $300 you originally claimed? 

As for 7/8 fps being 'fine' - for you maybe. But this is the top of the line APS-C sports /wildlife camera you want to replace. Who is going to take a hit on the frame rate for those? You may as well pay a little more and get the 5DIV with its (even better) full frame sensor. After all, spending $500 more when to get the 5DIV over the mythical APS-H is far less of a leap than getting the APS-H over the putative 7D3.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 1, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...




You and everyone else are dead wrong about Canon not advertising APS-H in consumer photography applications. Stop trying to weasel your way out of it.

The statement that “this is not a camera in actual development” is not a direct statement on sensor format.
Could it be inferred that they are opposed to using APS-H in consumer products? Yes, but that’s still just your assumption, and even if they outright said “Everyone at Canon hates APS-H and we’re glad it’s dead”, that wouldn’t stop them from putting it in a camera if consumer demand were there.

Neuro is really the only one who brings up the only valid point, the petition is DOA, so the entire discussion is really moot, regardless of how good the 120MP APS-H sensor actually is.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 1, 2017)

9VIII said:


> Read our discussion on lenses over the last few pages. EF-S does not save money.
> 
> The speed of the mirror would change a bit, all depending on how much Canon wants to invest in the mirror box, but that’s not really much of an issue. 7/8fps is fine.
> Filling the buffer 1.5x faster is not a problem, the buffer sizes today are quite generous.
> ...



OK..... EF-S does not save money..... but I can walk into B+H and come out with a 7D2 and 17-55F2.8 for $2300, or I could walk out with your APS-H 7D2 (If canon made it and if it was only $300 more) and a 24-70F2.8 for $3500..... no savings there!

7/8FPS is fine? perhaps for you, but I wanted 12 and settled for 10..... If I wanted 7Fps I would have bought an 80D and saved even more money.....


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 1, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Read our discussion on lenses over the last few pages. EF-S does not save money.
> ...



1. Just about everyone will take the 50% better high ISO performance of APS-H at almost any framerate.
2. You suck at buying lenses: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898652-USA/Canon_6313b002_EF_24_70mm_f_4_0L_IS.html/SUB/photoprice
The 7DH+Standard Zoom Lens would come out to $2700 
F4 isn’t f2.8 you say? APS-H is 50% larger, so it’s only a half stop difference in light gathering, BUT THEN:
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/EF-S-17-55-f-2.8-IS-USM
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-24-70mm-F4L-IS-USM

The 17-55f2.8 has a terrible T-stop value. You’re actually getting far superior light gathering out of the F4 lens on APS-H.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 1, 2017)

9VIII said:


> F4 isn’t f2.8 you say? APS-H is 50% larger, so it’s only a half stop difference in light gathering, BUT THEN:
> https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/EF-S-17-55-f-2.8-IS-USM
> https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-24-70mm-F4L-IS-USM
> 
> The 17-55f2.8 has a terrible T-stop value. You’re actually getting far superior light gathering out of the F4 lens on APS-H.


Are you telling me that I can use the same ISO and shutter speed on both and get the same results if the format is different? That (as an example) shooting ISO100 and 1000th sec on a 7D2 with an F2.8 lens is the same as (as an example) shooting ISO100 and 1000sec on a 6D2 with a F4 lens because there is 1 stop difference in the lenses and (approximately) 1 stop difference in the total light gathered by the larger sensor?


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 1, 2017)

9VIII said:


> You and everyone else are dead wrong about Canon not advertising APS-H in consumer photography applications.



Please point me to an advert.


----------



## dak723 (Nov 1, 2017)

The simple truth is that for anyone looking to get improved performance if moving up from crop - they will go to FF. Why get APS-H when FF does everything better and has lenses made for it? The answer is again - simple. There is no reason. I would never consider it. If I am unhappy with my crop APS-C, I will get a FF camera. I believe the vast majority of folks feel the same.


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 1, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Paid comparisons like this one worth nothing. You folks will be surprised the 1DX2 produces even less details, no kidding! That's definitely a proof Canon is making crappy cameras.
> *Why not to compare to a proper camera - the 5DsR???*


Ignorant comment


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 1, 2017)

dak723 said:


> The simple truth is that for anyone looking to get improved performance if moving up from crop - they will go to FF. Why get APS-H when FF does everything better and has lenses made for it? The answer is again - simple. There is no reason. I would never consider it. If I am unhappy with my crop APS-C, I will get a FF camera. I believe the vast majority of folks feel the same.



BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!!


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 1, 2017)

9VIII said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



I, for one, would like to know how you know an APS-H sensor would only be $300 more?

I really do think you've become unhinged, however, I'm sure that had you got to 100 petition signers that Canon would have been forced to capitulate, add APS-H production to the camera lines, add production capacity for a different body, develop lenses that could resolve 120mp, etc.

Yup. Lucky for Canon you didn't get to 100 signers. :

And you call us delusional.

It takes a big man to admit he ran down the wrong rabbit trail. It takes a small man to keep going down that trail, getting more and more lost and outlandish.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 1, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > F4 isn’t f2.8 you say? APS-H is 50% larger, so it’s only a half stop difference in light gathering, BUT THEN:
> ...



So here I am at home now..... I have a 7D2 and a 6D2 on the table.... I have a 15-55F2.8 and a 27-70F4.0 as well...

Both cameras are at ISO100... I shoot the crop lens at 35mm, and I shoot the FF lens at 55mm so the framing is the same... both cameras are in AV mode..... I am shooting at a evenly lit wall with the exposure mode set to centre weighted on both cameras....

7D2 and 17-55 at F2.8 - 1/200 sec
7D2 and 17-55 at F4.0 - 1/100 sec
7D2 and 24-70 at F4.0 - 1/100 sec
6D2 and 24-70 at F4.0 - 1/100 sec

WAIT A MINUTE! A 1 stop faster lens on a crop camera is one stop faster than a 1 stop slower lens of a FF camera! OMG! Optical properties of a lens do not change when you put it a different body! And this is despite DXO claiming that the T stop for both are almost the same...... but then again, the T top of the 17-55 changes all over the place when DXO moves it between various canon crop bodies..... perhaps DXO is wrong? ? ? Perhaps DXO is right and that the 17-55 has a T-stop of 4.0 when you put it on a 1200D, and when you mount it on a 550D, the lens somehow magically becomes brighter by 2/3 of a stop with a T-stop of 3.3 .....

Here is a good hint for you..... DXO is a "somewhat less than reliable" source of information..... but what do you expect from a company that rates Canon's cheapest lens, the 50F1.8 (the old version) with a score of 27 on the 1DX, while their second most expensive lens (and just redesigned), the 600F4, scores a mere 25.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Here is a good hint for you..... DXO is a "somewhat less than reliable" source of information..... but what do you expect from a company that rates Canon's cheapest lens, the 50F1.8 (the old version) with a score of 27 on the 1DX, while their second most expensive lens (and just redesigned), the 600F4, scores a mere 25.....



Don't forget that base ISO dynamic range is a significant contributor to DxOMark's Lens Score.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 1, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a good hint for you..... DXO is a "somewhat less than reliable" source of information..... but what do you expect from a company that rates Canon's cheapest lens, the 50F1.8 (the old version) with a score of 27 on the 1DX, while their second most expensive lens (and just redesigned), the 600F4, scores a mere 25.....
> ...



You are just jealous that my crappy 50F1.8 is a better leans than your 600F4


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 2, 2017)

Don,

these can be due to the fact that corners of a crop sensor are less vignetting affected than corners of FF sensor wide open or near wide open. exposure values may well end up being 1 stop apart depending on metering mode used of course. I hope it makes sense.



Don Haines said:


> 7D2 and 17-55 at F2.8 - 1/200 sec
> 7D2 and 17-55 at F4.0 - 1/100 sec
> 7D2 and 24-70 at F4.0 - 1/100 sec
> 6D2 and 24-70 at F4.0 - 1/100 sec
> ...


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 2, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Don,
> 
> these can be due to the fact that corners of a crop sensor are less vignetting affected than corners of FF sensor wide open or near wide open. exposure values may well end up being 1 stop apart depending on metering mode used of course. I hope it makes sense.
> 
> ...


Nope.

Both cameras were set for centre weighted. Plus, I set both to centre spot metered and it made no difference.

Yes, at a given aperture a FF sensor collects more light, but the greater amount of light is spread over a wider area. At any given aperture, at any distance from the centre of the lens (vignetting) the density of light per unit area is the same for whatever format sensor you have. If you are metering your exposure at the same distance from the centre, the results are the same. Of course, distance from the centre does not matter in either of these cameras since they both meter based on the centre of the frame. Neither camera has the ability to link exposure to an AF point (such as the 1DX2 can) so there is no way to shift the exposure calculations to a part of a lens where there would be noticeable vignetting.

There is no exposure equivalence between various formats, the exposure is the same for crop and FF, and in the very unlikely possibility that Canon would ever make an APS-H dslr, the same for it.

For a lens to do otherwise, it would have to detect what sensor was in use, and somehow magically change the optical properties of the lens.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 2, 2017)

if you have, then I am running out of ideas here... hopefully an incident light meter can provide you with a better reading consistency across your cameras and lens set. 



Don Haines said:


> ...I set both to centre spot metered and it made no difference...


----------



## Aglet (Nov 2, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Don,
> 
> these can be due to the fact that corners of a crop sensor are less vignetting affected than corners of FF sensor wide open or near wide open. exposure values may well end up being 1 stop apart depending on metering mode used of course. I hope it makes sense.
> 
> ...



microlens optimization for peripheral illumination can vary the effect as well.

CWA metering pattern for crop vs FF isn't necessarily equivalent for the border areas.

various vague variables.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 2, 2017)

unlikely being the case. please note: Don used centre AF point *spot metering* method. 



Aglet said:


> microlens optimization for peripheral illumination can vary the effect as well.
> 
> CWA metering pattern for crop vs FF isn't necessarily equivalent for the border areas.
> 
> various vague variables.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 2, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> It takes a big man to admit he ran down the wrong rabbit trail. It takes a small man to keep going down that trail, getting more and more lost and outlandish.



Irony.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 2, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > The simple truth is that for anyone looking to get improved performance if moving up from crop - they will go to FF. Why get APS-H when FF does everything better and has lenses made for it? The answer is again - simple. There is no reason. I would never consider it. If I am unhappy with my crop APS-C, I will get a FF camera. I believe the vast majority of folks feel the same.
> ...



No, you have another recommendation for a $5,000+ 100MP Full Frame Body.
Full Frame is *NOT* compatible with the concept of giving people maximum pixel density at a reasonable cost. Not even remotely close.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 2, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> WAIT A MINUTE! A 1 stop faster lens on a crop camera is one stop faster than a 1 stop slower lens of a FF camera!



You’re still fundamentally confused about how sensor noise works.

Your 7D2 has twice the sensor noise at the same exposure settings. You must use 1 stop lower ISO on APS-C to achieve the same noise performance as Full Frame (actually it’s still slightly more especially with Canon’s 1.6x crop).
A comparison of high ISO noise with both cameras would reveal the true light gathering performance of both lens/sensor combinations.

Also that EF-S 17-55 has HORRID vignetting: https://www.lenstip.com/10.8-Lens_review-Canon_EF-S_17-55_mm_f_2.8_IS_USM_Vignetting.html

I have to wonder if Vignetting isn’t the primary cause of worse T-stop ratings.
Edit: I guess vignetting on the EF 24-70 is just as bad, so it’s odd that it would have comparatively better transmission ratings if Vignetting were the cause.
On that subject, one of the best things about APS-H is it just cuts out the worst part of most Full Frame lenses.
In many cases it’s actually the _ideal_ sensor to use because lens designers so often don’t do enough correction for various flaws on Full Frame.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 2, 2017)

9VIII said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...


So now we are after maximum pixel density at a reasonable cost? Have you heard of Olympus and u4/3?


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 2, 2017)

9VIII said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > WAIT A MINUTE! A 1 stop faster lens on a crop camera is one stop faster than a 1 stop slower lens of a FF camera!
> ...



Oh, so now we are talking about sensor noise? Assuming the same level of technology, the major factor affecting noise is not the size of the sensor, it is the size of the photo site.... and for a fixed number of pixels on a chip, FF will beat APS-H. It changes nothing, people will go for crop if they are after lower cost, and if they are after higher quality they will go for FF....


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 2, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I’m convinced no one actually read either the petittion or anything else I wrote.
This is the third or fourth time I’ve made the focus on Pixel Density abundandtly clear.

Don, here’s your turn with the Cap of Shame.

SHAME ON YOU! For being so willfully ignorant and blatantly antagonsitic toward a basic photographic principle that even YOU would benefit from.

SHAME ON YOU!!!


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 2, 2017)

9VIII said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



It seems you are unable to put forward a cogent argument of your main point. If people repeatedly misunderstand what your point is perhaps you have not explained it clearly enough - as far as I can see it is you who keeps on bringing in things irrelevant to your central point (first of all the relevance of APS-H and now noise) so it is any wonder the conversation keeps getting diverted?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 2, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Assuming the same level of technology, the major factor affecting noise is not the size of the sensor, it is the size of the photo site....



Nope. The size of the senor determines image noise. Consider the 7DII and 5Ds(R), which are essentially equivalent in technology (released a year apart, both prior to on-chip ADC), and have essentially identical pixel sizes (7DII is 20 MP APS-C x 2.56 = 51 MP which is the 5Ds). Compare the ISO noise (e.g. P2P or DxO), and you'll see that the 5Ds is a stop or more better than the 7DII. 

Exposure is determined by light per unit area falling on the sensor (that's why ISO 100 f/2.8 gives the same metered shutter speed on a 1/2.3" PowerShot, m4/3, APS-C, FF, and medium format). Image noise is determined by (inversely proportional to) total light gathered, and a larger sensor gathers more total light.




Don Haines said:


> It changes nothing, people will go for crop if they are after lower cost, and if they are after higher quality they will go for FF....



Except for the four people who want APS-H. Four. :


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 2, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> It seems you are unable to put forward a cogent argument of your main point. If people repeatedly misunderstand what your point is perhaps you have not explained it clearly enough - as far as I can see it is you who keeps on bringing in things irrelevant to your central point (first of all the relevance of APS-H and now noise) so it is any wonder the conversation keeps getting diverted?



I’m not sure if it’s possible to avoid when everyone is seeing red everywhere and charges blindly just because someone said “APS-H”.
It’s actually almost as amusing as it is depressing to watch.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 2, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> So now we are after maximum pixel density at a reasonable cost? Have you heard of Olympus and u4/3?



If one is after maximum pixel density at a reasonable cost, look no further than Nokia. The Lumia 1020 has a 41 MP 1/1.5" sensor, which means a pixel pitch of 1.12 µm, and it cost $700 at launch. Canon's 120 MP APS-H sensor has a pixel pitch of 2.20 µm, and it would cost _way_ more than $700 if actually used in an ILC (which it won't be).


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 2, 2017)

9VIII said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



I shall take your advice and rethink my life....

hmmmmm........
I have a comfortable home by the river....
about to retire from a great job.....
taking the day off because I have too much accumulated holidays....
a partner who is smart, interesting, and drop-dead gorgeous...
financially set for life....
sitting on a comfortable chair in my hunting blind, with a good book, and waiting for a flock of bufflehead ducks to wander closer... 
sipping a cup of tea....
trying to hold a reasonable conversation with someone on the web....

GOT IT! I KNOW WHAT I AM GOING TO CHANGE!


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 2, 2017)

Don,

You have to admit that the “sipping a cup of tea....” line was way too much. You need to rethink your life. a cup of coffee instead is what you were missing... 



Don Haines said:


> I shall take your advice and rethink my life....
> 
> hmmmmm........
> I have a comfortable home by the river....
> ...


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 2, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > The speed of the mirror would change a bit, all depending on how much Canon wants to invest in the mirror box, but that’s not really much of an issue.
> ...



https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892349-DEMO/Canon_8035b002_EOS_6D_Digital_Camera.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081808-DEMO/canon_9128b002_eos_7d_mark_ii.html

The 6D is now cheaper than the 7D2, APS-H doesn’t “need” to change the price at all. The only thing Canon cares about is _perceived value_ compared to other Canon products. The way everyone here is talking a 7D2 with APS-H should be cheaper than APS-C.
The 5DSR carries a $400 premium over the 5D4. As far as manufacturing cost goes it’s ridiculous when the 5DSR is basically just a 5D3 with more resolution, and the 5D3 now sells for under $2500.

The principle:


neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > It changes nothing, *people will go for crop if they are after lower cost*, and if they are after higher quality they will go for FF....
> ...



Holds true with APS-H, regardless of how many people here and now may think that any of this is a good idea.





neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > So now we are after maximum pixel density at a reasonable cost? Have you heard of Olympus and u4/3?
> ...



At least M4/3 is actually designed for photography.
Nikon 1 bodies give 148MP equivalent, but Nikon’s problem was they wanted to charge the same for a 7.4x crop factor as what everyone else did for APS-C, it made M4/3 look good, and still does, but I have serious doubts we’ll ever see a 30MP M4/3 system either.
Not that it really matters what M4/3 does, I have Canon glass, Canon still makes the best Macro lens, this system should have the best Macro body.
24MP APS-C has been standard across most of the industry for almost five years now, I just wish manufacturers would quit dragging their feet on pixel density and get to something with serious gains over long existing products (which even the 5DS is not).


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 2, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



You’ll Give The Fifth Petition Signature!


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 2, 2017)

9VIII said:


> The 6D is now cheaper than the 7D2, APS-H doesn’t “need” to change the price at all. The only thing Canon cares about is _perceived value_ compared to other Canon products. The way everyone here is talking a 7D2 with APS-H should be cheaper than APS-C.
> The 5DSR carries a $400 premium over the 5D4. As far as manufacturing cost goes it’s ridiculous when the 5DSR is basically just a 5D3 with more resolution, and the 5D3 now sells for under $2500.



So you think you should base prices of a new model on the street price of a model that has already been superceded and is out of production? LOL! 
You clearly know zip about manufacturing, development costs and marketing. But I guess you are now going to say how my concentrating on a point that you raise is a distraction from your main argument - but am not sure anyone can say with any confidence of what that is any more: it may have been wanting a 120MP APS-H camera that only 4 people out of 3,000 agreed with. Or was it something to do with 'I want a 150MP FF camera that shoots at 10 fps and costs the same as the current 7D2' to which I say 'don't we all' 

Don;t we all.


----------



## dak723 (Nov 2, 2017)

9VIII said:


> 24MP APS-C has been standard across most of the industry for almost five years now, I just wish manufacturers would quit dragging their feet on pixel density and get to something with serious gains over long existing products (which even the 5DS is not).



Maybe they are "dragging their feet" because they would rather not put out a higher MP crop camera that has lower DR and more noise and needs a tripod to get a good pic that takes advantage of those extra pixels. Just maybe - because they understand the pros and cons of adding more MPs - they are reaching the practical limit of pixel density.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 2, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



BUFFLEHEAD!


----------



## scyrene (Nov 2, 2017)

9VIII said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Erm that's not a marketing advantage for APS-H. They made a prototype APS-H 120MP sensor for their own reasons, generally explained as being the easiest for a prototype at the time, but that doesn't mean they are limited to APS-H in applying that high pixel density. At that density, a FF sensor would have even more pixels! So you didn't answer my question. What marketing advantage does APS-H have, as opposed to FF and APS-C?

From this interminable discussion, you *seem* to think it is at a 'sweet spot' for price versus light-gathering/resolution, but that seems entirely arbitrary and subjective.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 3, 2017)

scyrene said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Look at the 5Ds, now tell me what they’re going to charge for something with twice as much resolution.
> ...



My answer was fully adequate, but I guess you're too blind and ignorant to figure it out.

When they introduced the 5DS they increased the price significantly over its existing equivalent. The 5DS uses the 5D3 Body with almost exactly the same features, but it has a slower burst and more resolution.
A year later the 5D4 comes out and it actually has even more "pixels" than the 5DS due to Dual Pixel AF, the 5D4 sensor is even more expensive to produce, and the body has more features, but they charge less because it's marketed with less resolution.

"Marketing" pure and simple.
There will never be a Full Frame Sensor with more resolution selling for less than the latest 5DS series body.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 3, 2017)

dak723 said:


> they would rather not put out a higher MP crop camera that has lower DR


Well we know Canon doesn't care about that after the 6D2.



dak723 said:


> and more noise


That's been debunked a million times already. :



dak723 said:


> needs a tripod to get a good pic that takes advantage of those extra pixels.


And that's not entirely true either because anyone shooting fast action is using an appropriate shutter speed already. Wildlife and action oriented events are applicable to this sensor (and high ISO generally prohibits the best DR anyway).
Even if it's only a small advantage in some applications, Canon has been selling people on small advantages for decades already.
The entire EOS ecosystem would be much better off having this option.



dak723 said:


> Just maybe - because they understand the pros and cons of adding more MPs - they are reaching the practical limit of pixel density.



"Just maybe" you've been so inundated with the blatant ignorance being spewed like a fountain all over this thread that you've forgotten that you're not the only one who takes pictures, and one of the greatest assets of the EOS ecosystem is that they support a wider variety of technical shooting styles better than any other system ever made.
They have the opportunity to enhance that reputation with an extra high resolution crop sensor.

We are Multiple Orders of Magnitude away from reaching the practical limits of pixel density. The only practical limit that anyone cares about, as I've said many times now, is memory card writing speed.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 3, 2017)

Spock said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > The 6D is now cheaper than the 7D2, APS-H doesn’t “need” to change the price at all.
> ...



Don't discredit the 6D sensor, a lot of people prefer it over the 5D3 sensor.
And the 7D2 is about to be discontinued, it's no spring chicken.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 3, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > The 6D is now cheaper than the 7D2, APS-H doesn’t “need” to change the price at all. The only thing Canon cares about is _perceived value_ compared to other Canon products. The way everyone here is talking a 7D2 with APS-H should be cheaper than APS-C.
> ...



No no, that's what you and everyone who hates APS-H thinks, because APS-H is worthless, so really canon wouldn't even be able to give it away if they tried.
Can't get the right focal length ratio on standard zoom lenses, the whole thing is no good.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 3, 2017)

At this point I'm pretty sure 90% of the thread is already re-tread so there's no point in anyone posting anything else when everything you could possibly want to ask has already been answered.

Please for goodness sake, read the petition, read the thread.

To summarize:

-Sony Eats Stars

-People made a petition for that, so maybe petitions can work for Canon?

-New Petition for Canon:






https://www.change.org/p/canon-inc-the-greatest-producer-of-photographic-tools-ever-convince-canon-to-implement-the-120-megapixel-aps-h-sensor-in-a-reasonably-priced-camera


-Some people don't like APS-H because it's not a currently produced format

-Some people don't like what APS-H does to lenses

-Some people are too lazy to look up the prices on affordable EF lenses

-Some people think APS-C users don't care about sensor size.

-Some people are really confused about what determines sensor noise

-Some people think Canon would just love to sell a 100+ Megapixel Full Frame body for less than what the 5DS costs

-Half the people posting don't like high resolution sensors at all because their own shooting styles are so limited

-The rest of the thread is back-peddling and running in circles because no-one wants to give an honest moment's thought to the subject or put any effort into composing a response, so all of the questions resurface multiple times over the course of 8 pages.


----------



## BillB (Nov 3, 2017)

9VIII said:


> At this point I'm pretty sure 90% of the thread is already re-tread so there's no point in anyone posting anything else when everything you could possibly want to ask has already been answered.
> 
> Please for goodness sake, read the petition, read the thread.
> 
> ...



Maybe people keep repeating the questions because they haven't gotten any understandable answers.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 3, 2017)

BillB said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > At this point I'm pretty sure 90% of the thread is already re-tread so there's no point in anyone posting anything else when everything you could possibly want to ask has already been answered.
> ...



No they all understand the situation quite well, it’s a game of “poke the bear” and behaving reasonably just ends the game.
(You will find forumites here playing this game every so often, it can be one of the more memorable aspects of the community as long as no-one gets banned... Or is that “especially if someone gets banned”. Either way, people just like to run their mouths every once in a while)


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 3, 2017)

9VIII said:


> No they all understand the situation quite well, it’s a game of “poke the bear” and behaving reasonably just ends the game.
> (You will find forumites here playing this game every so often, it can be one of the more memorable aspects of the community as long as no-one gets banned... Or is that “especially if someone gets banned”. Either way, people just like to run their mouths every once in a while)



It is more like someone asks a question and does not get the answer they like the sound of. So they repeat the question are amazed when the same answer comes back.So they expand the argument and when those are rebuffed claim the respondents are missing the main point. So they then claim the respondents trolls and unable to understand a simple point and how the respondents must be blind fanboys unable to comprehend the benefits of what is being said.

So I will put this as simply as possible:
I do not disagree with your desire for more MP with less noise and more DR. Just because I do not see an imperative for 120MP does not mean I wold turn it down if I got them
I do disagree with you that APS-H would be competitively priced with the APS-C, and at the same price (or cheaper) as a 4-year old near-end-of-line FF model. You may as wel ask why the 7D2 does not cost $800 instead of $1400. 
I do disagree is that Canon is likely to ever resurrect the APS-H. 

You talk about 'facts' and 'making sense' whereas all you have is conjecture, supposition and wishful thinking. Your poll shows that APS-H is a dead duck so why you keep banging on about it is beyond me. 
I have no problems with wishful thinking but when that morphs into fact, there is a problem.


----------



## Valvebounce (Nov 3, 2017)

Hi 9VIII. 
I'm just wondering at what point you started playing the 'game' and why? 
You have managed to incite several reasonable people to respond in somewhat different tone from their regular posts on the forum with this game. 

Cheers, Graham. 



9VIII said:


> it’s a game of “poke the bear” and behaving reasonably just ends the game.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 3, 2017)

Valvebounce said:



> Hi 9VIII.
> I'm just wondering at what point you started playing the 'game' and why?
> You have managed to incite several reasonable people to respond in somewhat different tone from their regular posts on the forum with this game.
> 
> ...




As soon as Neuro posted this:


neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I guarantee if Canon were to release two versions of the 7DMkIII, one APS-C, and one APS-H, with the same pixel density across both, charging $300 more for APS-H, no one would buy the APS-C version.
> ...



That's basically an invitation for a throwdown.

The really funny thing is I'm confident both Neuro and I have argued exact opposite stances before (maybe not in direct opposition in the same thread like this), that in itself made the argument amusing.

As soon as the forum resident "tough guy" starts then spectators join in expecting to score some easy points.

Neuro didn't actually try to argue anything beyond lens compatibility and the lack of current production, the caption with Gollum actually does a good job representing the way people feel about APS-H, much as this entire discussion is not really about APS-H.
That's where the confusion really comes from, but I hesitate to call it confusion because every opportunity given to make this about APS-C was totally ignored. People don't want to argue about APS-C, they _want_ to argue about APS-H.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 3, 2017)

Valvebounce said:


> I'm just wondering at what point you started playing the 'game' and why?
> You have managed to incite several reasonable people to respond in somewhat different tone from their regular posts on the forum with this game.



When you start 'guaranteeing' that everyone will make a particular choice, not coincidentally a choice in favor of the very thing you're proposing, you're asking for trouble (and making yourself look foolish in the process).


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 4, 2017)

9VIII said:


> I kind of feel sorry that Don decided to throw himself into the pit, but I can't dictate the posting habits of other members.



I'm not sure what you mean about "throw himself into the pit".....

I pointed out that if you added an APS-H sensor into a 7D2, that you would need a larger mirror, that the files would be larger, and that this would slow down the burst speed of the camera. 

I pointed out that if you put in an APS-H sensor, that you would no longer be able to use the less expensive APS-C lenses.

I pointed out that I can walk into B+H and come out with a 7D2 and 17-55F2.8 for $2300, or I could walk out with your APS-H 7D2 (If canon made it and if it was only $300 more) and a 24-70F2.8 for $3500. You then insulted me by saying that "I suck at buying lenses" because the 24-70F4 is much cheaper, and that "The 17-55f2.8 has a terrible T-stop value. You’re actually getting far superior light gathering out of the F4 lens on APS-H"

Well, I don't have an APS-H camera to test this out on, but I just happen to have both of those lenses, a 7D2, and a 6D2 here to play with. Testing on the 7D2 shows that the F4 lens is one stop slower than the F2.8 lens, and therefore it gathers 1 stop less light. Testing also confirms that there was no difference in exposure moving the F4 lens from crop to FF. There is no "crop equivalence factor" when it comes to exposure, and when you are spot metering at the centre of the lens, that vignetting in the edges of the frame has no effect on metering.

despite the fact that we were discussing exposure, you again insulted me by saying "You’re still fundamentally confused about how sensor noise works." My response was "Assuming the same level of technology, the major factor affecting noise is not the size of the sensor, it is the size of the photo site.... and for a fixed number of pixels on a chip, FF will beat APS-H. It changes nothing, people will go for crop if they are after lower cost, and if they are after higher quality they will go for FF...."

You then tried to change the discussion to "maximum pixel density at a reasonable cost" and insulted me yet again. I pointed out u4/3 cameras. (They have a much greater pixel density AND a lower cost than Canon DSLRs)

You then told me to go rethink my life.

You sir, owe me an apology!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 4, 2017)

dak723 said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > 24MP APS-C has been standard across most of the industry for almost five years now, I just wish manufacturers would quit dragging their feet on pixel density and get to something with serious gains over long existing products (which even the 5DS is not).
> ...



Actually, Camera phones with their tiny sensors have a much higher APS-C or FF equivalent MP count, and, noise per pixel is indeed higher, but they are turning out some pretty amazing images, considering the tiny sensor.

a 1/2.5 in 12 mp camera phone sensor with a area of 25mm sq where a APS-C has about 380mm sq or 15.2 times the area. Presumably, you could put 182+ MP on the sensor if you could make it work. A 864mm sq FF sensor has about 34.6X the area, or 415 MP 

So, unless my reasoning is faulty, a 12 MP Galaxy S7 which is not the most dense phone sensor scales up to 415 FF MP.

I think it could be done, expensive perhaps, and would require layered BSI sensors to get all the circuitry on it, but doable.

As far as the write time and FPS for such a camera, it might be slower than we'd like. But, people are capturing photos with those dense sensors all the time. 

Experts are predicting much more dense sensors that we see today, we are not near the limit, but costs also rise, and practical limitations like processor power and memory keep the huge MP sensors from being a practical reality, at least for now. I expect a ~1000 MP sensor to appear in 5 years, it might only be a technology demonstration, but it could happen.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 4, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I kind of feel sorry that Don decided to throw himself into the pit, but I can't dictate the posting habits of other members.
> ...



I’m sorry your reading comprehension is so bad.

Read the thread again.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 4, 2017)

9VIII said:


> ...this entire discussion is not really about APS-H.
> That's where the confusion really comes from, but I hesitate to call it confusion because every opportunity given to make this about APS-C was totally ignored. People don't want to argue about APS-C, they _want_ to argue about APS-H.



Didn't you make it about APS-H when you told us to read your petition...?A petition where you tell Canon to make a 120mp APS-H camera?


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 5, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > ...this entire discussion is not really about APS-H.
> ...



_Read_ the petition.
APS-H is mentioned once in the body of the petition, the size of sensor is simply a matter of circumstance. APS-H is the only high resolution prototype Canon has ever shown.

It’s ironic that you can quote that post and pretend like the discussion constantly lingering on APS-H is anything but the will of the wider group.
Again, as soon as APS-H is mentioned the crowd here goes mad like a herd of of angry bulls charging down the streets in Spain.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 5, 2017)

9VIII said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



I did read the petition and you are asking Canon specifically to make a 120MP APS-H. You mentioned it in the title and in the body of the text with nothing about 'density' equivalence for other formats. End of. If that is not what you meant then why did you ask for it?



> 120 Megapixel APS-H Sensor is a feature people really want,


Written by you.
So tell me, how is that anything other than a call for a high-density APS-H camera?

Or are you the Cheshire cat in disguise where things mean what you want them to mean? Excuse me because I have a rabbit hole to jump down....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 5, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> > 120 Megapixel APS-H Sensor is a feature people really want,
> 
> 
> Written by you.



Maybe that's what he said. But what he *meant* was, "_120 Megapixel APS-H Sensor is a feature four people really want._"


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 6, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > > 120 Megapixel APS-H Sensor is a feature people really want,
> ...



;D


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 6, 2017)

nuh, just 3 people. Jopa wasn't serious about it ;D


----------



## OSOK (Nov 6, 2017)

9VIII said:


> The D850 with a Battery Grip shooting 45MP at 9fps (that better be 14bit) is really the story of the year,



Yeah, when adding $1,000 worth of grip, battery and charger....

No doubt in my mind there will be a percentage of users who buy this thing thinking just a grip (any grip) will get 9fps. Then there will be another group who will think just $350 for the Nikon grip will suffice. Not digging deeper to see the price of the battery and the outrageous price of the charger. There will be some disappointed people who will kick themselves for not reading further. Once stuck paying that much, they'll just add themselves to the ranks of Nikon online apologists and make excuses on the web.


I think the speed hype of the D850 would be slightly diminished if next to the 9fps spec, they write @ $4,400. 

Now, 45mp @ 7fps is 2 better than the 5DSR and this is something significant. But....

Uncompressed, full resolution images from the D850 are 93mb give or take a couple. Anyone with dreams of using this as an occasional sports camera will be churning out 7 to 9 frames per second at nearly 100mb per image. That's disgusting. 

A typical buffer sized burst of 3-4 seconds will chew up about 3GB of card space. And...given the high prices of XQD...

This is why the Nikon people are parading the equality of lossless compressed across the web. Which of course, makes zero sense. If it truly, 100% is the same as uncompressed 14 bit NEF - why even offer an uncompressed option in the menu? Force lossless compressed and save people the wasted space. They are trying to counter the backlash of complaints about the massive file size.

All I can say is, if you want to be shooting sports with that thing -- better get used to JPG. And better get used to learning to actually expose correctly and not be one of these Sony sensor +5 shadow lifters.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 6, 2017)

OSOK said:


> No doubt in my mind there will be a percentage of users who buy this thing thinking just a grip (any grip) will get 9fps. Then there will be another group who will think just $350 for the Nikon grip will suffice. Not digging deeper to see the price of the battery and the outrageous price of the charger. There will be some disappointed people who will kick themselves for not reading further. Once stuck paying that much, they'll just add themselves to the ranks of Nikon online apologists and make excuses on the web.
> 
> I think the speed hype of the D850 would be slightly diminished if next to the 9fps spec, they write @ $4,400.
> 
> ...



Compression takes time.... with slow cards, it is quite likely that the time spent doing compression is more than compensated for by the time it takes to write the image, but this may not hold true for really fast memory cards.

It is quite possible that in order to get the burst speed, they are just reading the sensor and dumping to memory with minimal processing involved, and that if they were to compress the image, that it could slow down the burst rate.....


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 6, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> > 120 Megapixel APS-H Sensor is a feature people really want,
> 
> 
> Written by you.
> ...



It is a call for 120MP APS-H, that’s the most logical format to use, but the sensor format is not the main focus of the petition, resolution and pixel density are mentioned more than twice as much as APS-H.
This just happens to be the only format Canon has demonstrated for this type of product, and given that it does have many advantages it only benefits the idea to keep the APS-H sensor in the concept.
The next best thing to ask for would probably be a 50MP APS-C “Mini 5DS” but that’s underperforming compared to what the APS-H concept accomplishes.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 7, 2017)

9VIII said:


> It is a call for 120MP APS-H, that’s the most logical format to use, but the sensor format is not the main focus of the petition, resolution and pixel density are mentioned more than twice as much as APS-H.
> This just happens to be the only format Canon has demonstrated for this type of product, and given that it does have many advantages it only benefits the idea to keep the APS-H sensor in the concept.
> The next best thing to ask for would probably be a 50MP APS-C “Mini 5DS” but that’s underperforming compared to what the APS-H concept accomplishes.



Well, your call for APS-H may be why you had such a poor response. Either that or people are not clamouring for 180MP FF sensor (or equivalent).
My guess is the latter.

Note to self: When raising a petition, make sure the title and main thrust of the petition text actually describes what I am after.


----------

