# I still don't get the crop debate



## dlleno (Apr 11, 2012)

ok, yes I get that in today's market, the crop sensors are less expensive, and that it is cheaper to produce many, smaller sensors (more revenue from the same silicon substrate). for that reason I don't see the crops going away soon. 

but the advantages of the smaller sensors (reach) are (currently at least) overshadowed by the consequences of pixel density -- large sensors put more pixels on the image with lower pixel density, which is why the IQ is higher. captain obvious at your service 

1d4 is a good example, of "best of both worlds". but why constrain the camera's capabilities to the geometric size of the silicon under the mirror? I see no technical reason (yet I do see a market reason) why a full frame sensor could not be asked to behave like any of the other crop sensors, 1.3 or 1.6, and still produce images just as good if not better as the native crop technologies they would mimic -- after all, the trade-offs of pixel density, noise, and pixel count are the same no matter what the substrate size is. 

so -- other than to drive the consumer and prosumer crop markets, and perhaps experiment there with high pixel densities, there's no reason why the best FF sensor could not produce the _same IQ and reach combination_ as the best crop sensor -- by simply cropping the FF image "in camera" -- or even out of camera, for that matter. 

am I out in the weeds? Why arn't the Canon pro bodies available with selectable crop configurations? or maybe the 1dx will do that and I'm behind the times . 

the only reason I can think of NOT to do that, would be that the higher pixel density would compromise high ISO work and would come up just short of matching the abilities of a good crop sensor. case in point: cropped 5D3 images are very close to the same resolution as native 7D images at the same FOV. but it seems Canon could solve this problem with a sensor that would, for example, apply a lower pixel density when needed, and a higher pixel density when required. yea, more like the D800 only do it better.


----------



## JR (Apr 11, 2012)

I could be wrong but in terms of cropping a FF sensor, patents may be involved. Nikon is doing it with its FF sensor, but again I believe patents may be involved here.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 11, 2012)

Nikon had a compelling reason to offer it. Their pro series DSLR's were crop cameras, and so were the lenses. Photographers with a ton of money invested in pro grade lenses wanted to be able to use them when Nikon went to FF. The crop mode is offered for those who bought those expensive DX lenses.

Canon did not sell DX lenses for their Pro series cameras, just FF lenses. When the Rebel Series came out, Canon offered EF-S lenses as a low cost option for a Standard Zoom and wide zoom. They will not physically fir on a FF body. So why would Canon crop a image for lenses that would not fit??

If you just want a cropped image, its a trivial thing, it can be done automatically as you import into photoshop, and, if you decide to change the crop a little, you can.


----------



## K-amps (Apr 11, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Nikon had a compelling reason to offer it. Their pro series DSLR's were crop cameras, and so were the lenses. Photographers with a ton of money invested in pro grade lenses wanted to be able to use them when Nikon went to FF. The crop mode is offered for those who bought those expensive DX lenses.
> 
> Canon did not sell DX lenses for their Pro series cameras, just FF lenses. When the Rebel Series came out, Canon offered EF-S lenses as a low cost option for a Standard Zoom and wide zoom. They will not physically fir on a FF body. So why would Canon crop a image for lenses that would not fit??
> 
> If you just want a cropped image, its a trivial thing, it can be done automatically as you import into photoshop, and, if you decide to change the crop a little, you can.



Except that the UWA EF-S lenses outperform similarly priced UWA FF lenses in the crop area. For those who have invested in a crop body with a couple of lenses (especially hobbyists) allowing FF bodies to take EF-S lenses gives them options. Unless Canon thinks that the users are too naiive to see the EF-S Vignette on FF sensor and complain about it.


----------



## mitchell3417 (Apr 11, 2012)

It's my understanding that the mirror on a FF camera would hit the back of an ef-s lens. The only way you can shoot with an ef-s lens on a FF (assuming it would mount on a FF) is to have the mirror locked up permanently i.e. live view mode.


----------



## JR (Apr 11, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Nikon had a compelling reason to offer it. Their pro series DSLR's were crop cameras, and so were the lenses. Photographers with a ton of money invested in pro grade lenses wanted to be able to use them when Nikon went to FF. The crop mode is offered for those who bought those expensive DX lenses.
> 
> Canon did not sell DX lenses for their Pro series cameras, just FF lenses. When the Rebel Series came out, Canon offered EF-S lenses as a low cost option for a Standard Zoom and wide zoom. They will not physically fir on a FF body. So why would Canon crop a image for lenses that would not fit??
> 
> If you just want a cropped image, its a trivial thing, it can be done automatically as you import into photoshop, and, if you decide to change the crop a little, you can.



Thanks I did not know that. Does this mean it is not related to the fact Nikon would have patents to crop a FF sensor then that Canon is not offering the same thing? I guess it would be more a marketing decision then on Canon part?

Interesting...


----------



## unfocused (Apr 11, 2012)

I don't get the crop debate either, but for entirely different reasons.

1) You essentially answered your own question when you said that the cost of producing an APS-C sensor is less than a full frame sensor. 

2) It's not correct that the advantages of a smaller sensor are overshadowed by the consequences of pixel density. At most normal ISO speeds, the differences between crop sensor and full frame are virtually undetectable in prints, on the printed page or on a website. (hence the term "pixel peeping")

3) Are you suggesting that manufacturers make full frame sensors that are of the same or similar pixel density as APS-C sensors? If so, then any benefit that might exist with a full frame sensor would disappear. You can't have it both ways – dense pixels on a full frame good, dense pixels on APS-C bad?

4) While in-camera cropping sounds good in theory, the technology isn't there yet. To accurately frame an image with in-camera cropping requires some sort of electronic viewfinder and the current crop of electronic viewfinders are a poor substitute for an optical viewfinder.

5) After spending a lifetime learning to frame images through the viewfinder, I have no interest in "guesstimating" a crop by using a full-frame viewfinder to frame a cropped image. 

6) I don't understand this statement: "cropped 5D3 images are very close to the same resolution as native 7D images at the same FOV." I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the calculations (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong) but I believe a 22mp full frame image cropped to APS-C is 8.6 megapixels. Which is clearly not very close to the 18 mp of the 7D.

What I cannot understand is why so many full frame users seem so upset by the very existence of APS-C bodies. There are two primary DSLR formats today and it is unlikely that either Canon or Nikon are going to abandon either one in the foreseeable future.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 11, 2012)

JR said:


> I could be wrong but in terms of cropping a FF sensor, patents may be involved. Nikon is doing it with its FF sensor, but again I believe patents may be involved here.



That would be the height of absurd patents. How in the world can you patent cropping?? (then again some patents are pretty absurd, but still, this would really take the cake)


----------



## dlleno (Apr 11, 2012)

ok all good points -- patents may be involved here, and there is the "crop lens" factor which I'll comment on later. As for just cropping the result of a FF image, yes of course that it trivial. after more thought:

Unfortunately, cropping the FF image does not produce equivalent results to the native crop sensor, at least today for Canon, and there's a good reason for that (at least for Canon!). I suspect there is some FF pixel density, larger than today's 5D3, that would do this at the 1.6x FOV, but Canon chose not to do that -- they chose to advantage the 5D performance in low light/high ISO, and its low-density sensor does that very well. So well, in fact, that it can't (quite) be cropped to 1.6x with equivalent performance to the 7D, which itself is aging. The 5D3 pixel density is approximately the same as the 40D of five years ago -- which means the state of the art has advanced considerably and, should they want to, Canon could produce a 10mp 1.6x crop camera with rather stunning low-light performance. Of course, no one would buy it because of the low pixel count, but it would be doable, and in fact they have a 10mp crop camera today in the 5D3 -- by cropping in post! My point is that at any particular pixel density state-of-the-art, the FFs can always be cropped in post to mimic the crop FOV , but the IQ is just not quite there yet because the crop sensors are designed to maximize resolution in favorable light conditions and will win 'by a neck' when compared with (Canon) FF sensors, which have too low of a pixel density to compete head-to-head when throwing over half of the image information away . For example, Canon could have produced a 38mp FF which (when cropped to 1.6) would have the same pixel count as a 50D, but its low-light performance would not have been as good as the 22mp they chose for the 5D3. 

I'm not faulting Canon for this at all; in fact the low light performance of the 5D3 means more keepers and more corner case shots in more difficult situations, greater ability to bring out shadow detail in post, etc. . halleluiah go team go I like it. 

Yea I also get that it would be silly to operate a camera body in crop mode when the "crop lenses" won't fit, and I understand Nikon's marketing choices there. But those who would appreciate in-camera crop (and FOV preview in the viewfinder) are the most likely to understand that cropping the image to to change the FOV is not about the ability to fit cheaper lenses on there, it is about changing the FOV (for more "reach") and still maintaining acceptable IQ. I'm talking here about the camera that could truly combine the reach advantages of the crop body with the IQ advantages of the FF. One FF body that, when cropped, would absolutely not be rivaled by any 1.3 or a 1.6 body, when the subject distance and lens is the same. 

I do realize that producing such a camera would knock the 1D series out of the lineup because the 1.3 crop bodies would offer no advantage over the FFs of the same pixel density. and it would probably be a $12K body...

I'm not a physicist but would it not be possible to produce a sensor that would operate in more than one pixel density mode (this is a Canon forum so don't fault me for missing something about the D800 here...). I don't mean crop I mean pixel density -- for example, operate the sensor at FF 22mp with all the low light advantages thereunto appertaining, and also at FF 38mp to advantage the situations that the crop bodies depend on -- with favorable light, you get higher resolution when you don't need high-ISO, AND you can crop down to 1.6x for more "reach" and still have a 15mp image that no other natively-cropped body would be able to rival. 

By the way, if we are expecting the 1Ds and 1D lines to converge, the only way I can see keeping the birders happy ,for example, is to allow the 1Dx to operate in either FF or 1.3 crop mode -- as long as that offers some advantages the 1D4 crowd will value. But I'm not up on the latest 1dx rumors so apologies if I'm missing a market clue from this design.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 11, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If you just want a cropped image, its a trivial thing, it can be done automatically as you import into photoshop, and, if you decide to change the crop a little, you can.



There are a good reasons to do it in cam. 

1. [WASTE OF SPACE] What if you are shooting wildlife that is distant? Why waste storage on gartbage you will trim away? Why save a full FF RAW file when the subject doesn't even fill a 2.56x smaller APS-C cropped area?

2. [SPEED] - D800 can do only a meager 4fps at FF but has the throughput to handle 25MP at 5fps and 16MP at 6fps. It would stink to have some 38MP 5Ds stuck at 4fps no matter what, no? When you might have had 6fps at APS-C crop? The latter is what makes the D800 somewhat of an all rounder and why it doesn't get trashed by the 5D3 in that regard. I mean if they can drive it 6fps 38MP then awesome and maybe they need that to counter exmor dynamic range, but if not, a crop mode sure would be awesome for speed boost.

Canon came up with sRAW and they sadly tend to only want to do what they did first no matter how great the reasons for adding additional ways to do things so I doubt they will offer crop mode to save space (and for wildlife/reach, sRAW-type space savings are worse than nothing).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 11, 2012)

dlleno said:


> but the advantages of the smaller sensors (reach) are (currently at least) overshadowed by the consequences of pixel density -- large sensors put more pixels on the image with lower pixel density, which is why the IQ is higher. captain obvious at your service



it's little to do with pixel density as the D800 should finally have made clear, it's about the total surface area that makes SNR better




> so -- other than to drive the consumer and prosumer crop markets, and perhaps experiment there with high pixel densities, there's no reason why the best FF sensor could not produce the _same IQ and reach combination_ as the best crop sensor -- by simply cropping the FF image "in camera" -- or even out of camera, for that matter.



You don't gain actual reach for distant subjects by cropping, only the photosite density matters for how many pixels per duck you get.

Cropping modes on FF can no way magically add more pixels per duck.

What they can do is spare you wasting tons of storage space on giant areas you'd crop away anyway and, if the mirror box allows it, more frames per second.





> but it seems Canon could solve this problem with a sensor that would, for example, apply a lower pixel density when needed, and a higher pixel density when required. yea, more like the D800 only do it better.



There is no way for a sensor to magically change photosite density. Photosites are physical things and they can't just multiply or join at will. (well i suppose they could bin them down on chip to save storage space, if you had a really, really high density sensor for the times you didn;t care about reach or detail)


----------



## woollybear (Apr 11, 2012)

I did some back of the envelope math...and I'm not buying the cost of sensor reasoning.

If Canon is using a 300mm wafer, they will get roughly 80 sensor dies at full frame and 215 sensors at APC-C. (Don't shoot me here, I didn't account for edges, targets, etc. I just divided the area of the wafer by the sensor area). If yields drop for the FF (yields decline more for larger die) and the yield works out to even 4 to 1, then you get about 50 FF and 200 Crop sensors per wafer. If you account for pixel density I would expect the yields to even out (smaller feature sizes would see lower yields). So I think I am being somewhat biased in favor of crops here. 

How much does a sensor cost? Even Intel Microprocessors (far more complex to manufacture) would cost at most 100 bucks to make. A minimum feature size of 1 micron is very crude by today's standards. Chips like that might cost a dollar or less to make. The pixel size on a 50D is a little under 5 microns.

So, given the cost of manufacture of a camera, I think the sensor itself is a minor percentage. My guess is that the full frame jacks up the cost of the camera because of the other components, or because of the complexity of assembling the larger parts in essentially the same package.


----------



## dlleno (Apr 11, 2012)

unfocused said:


> 2) It's not correct that the advantages of a smaller sensor are overshadowed by the consequences of pixel density. At most normal ISO speeds, the differences between crop sensor and full frame are virtually undetectable in prints, on the printed page or on a website. (hence the term "pixel peeping")



yes, what I mean here is that the consequences of pixel density do come into play at normal ISO speeds _at the same FOV_ when pixel peeping. This is evidenced by the fact that a 5D image, when cropped to 1.6x, is a lot closer in actual, realizable IQ to the 7D native image than the pixel calculations would imply. So overall system resolution (I should have used the term IQ instead of resolution) is not just about pixel count. I do think it is astonishing that an 8mp (cropped) image from the 5D3 compares very well with the native 18mp image from the 7D. I wish I had the reference (sorry) but in another thread this topic was discussed, and examples posted showing this. 


> 3) Are you suggesting that manufacturers make full frame sensors that are of the same or similar pixel density as APS-C sensors? If so, then any benefit that might exist with a full frame sensor would disappear. You can't have it both ways – dense pixels on a full frame good, dense pixels on APS-C bad?


 precisely, and this is why the advantages of a smaller sensor are overshadowed by the consequences of pixel density.


> 4) While in-camera cropping sounds good in theory, the technology isn't there yet. To accurately frame an image with in-camera cropping requires some sort of electronic viewfinder and the current crop of electronic viewfinders are a poor substitute for an optical viewfinder.


 I hear that


> 5) After spending a lifetime learning to frame images through the viewfinder, I have no interest in "guesstimating" a crop by using a full-frame viewfinder to frame a cropped image.


 +1 to that.


> 6) I don't understand this statement: "cropped 5D3 images are very close to the same resolution as native 7D images at the same FOV." I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the calculations (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong) but I believe a 22mp full frame image cropped to APS-C is 8.6 megapixels. Which is clearly not very close to the 18 mp of the 7D.


 right, and this is the point -- actual IQ comparisons between the two show that the realizable IQ of the 8.6mp crop of the 5D are remarkably similar in actual pixel-peeping results to the 18mp image produced by the 7D. so there is something else going on here besides pixel count (i.e. consequences of high pixel density)


> What I cannot understand is why so many full frame users seem so upset by the very existence of APS-C bodies. There are two primary DSLR formats today and it is unlikely that either Canon or Nikon are going to abandon either one in the foreseeable future.



+1 on that too. Especially if Canon continues to produce FF bodies with low pixel densities to advantage low noise, shadow detail, and high ISO, the cropped results will always fall short of the native crop bodies and there will always be an advantage, in normal lighting and ISO conditions, in the ability of the crop body to put "more pixels on the image" and produce a better image for the same distance-limited subject using the same lens. 

I guess what this discussion has emphasized is that it would take a true dual-mode sensor -- one that could operate at more than one true density (not just crop) -- to combine the advantages of the FF and the best crop bodies. such a beast would probably not sell because the market would probably not accept the price. Yet, I remain astonished at how close the 5D3 has come to achieving equivalent IQ to the 7D at the same FOV. It also illustrates why the pro body 1D4 has been successful as a crop body -- low pixel density. It will be interesting to see what Canon does with the 5D3-era sensor technology, i.e. what the next generation of crop bodies will offer. 

also, to keep the discussion on target - I am talking about distance-limited situations where the subject distance and lens is the same, i.e. where the crop bodies put more pixels on the image and the FF bodies have to throw pixels away to get the same FOV. since overall IQ is not just about pixel count, the difference in actual IQ is of interest, not just the factor of 2.56 (or 1.69) which we can all type into our calculators.


----------



## dlleno (Apr 11, 2012)

woollybear said:


> I did some back of the envelope math...and I'm not buying the cost of sensor reasoning.
> 
> If Canon is using a 300mm wafer, they will get roughly 80 sensor dies at full frame and 215 sensors at APC-C. (Don't shoot me here, I didn't account for edges, targets, etc. I just divided the area of the wafer by the sensor area). If yields drop for the FF (yields decline more for larger die) and the yield works out to even 4 to 1, then you get about 50 FF and 200 Crop sensors per wafer. If you account for pixel density I would expect the yields to even out (smaller feature sizes would see lower yields). So I think I am being somewhat biased in favor of crops here.
> 
> ...



good points -- it may be more than just yields here too. what I'm seeing is that the FF sensors have the more expensive technologies applied as well ,beyond pixel counts. There is also the economies of scale -- there may be 100 times as many 300mm wafers yielding 215 crop sensors each, compared to the number of 300mm wafers producing FF sensors. But your point is well taken that there are other consequential mfg costs to consider as well.


----------



## pwp (Apr 11, 2012)

I shoot 1D4 bodies and will miss the x1.3 crop of the APS-H sensor. It's going to COST me. 
My 300 f/2.8 will lose an effective 90mm on the FF 1DX bodies which I have on pre-order. 

The pricey required solution is a new 400 f/2.8II. I _like _APS-H.

Paul Wright


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 11, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon had a compelling reason to offer it. Their pro series DSLR's were crop cameras, and so were the lenses. Photographers with a ton of money invested in pro grade lenses wanted to be able to use them when Nikon went to FF. The crop mode is offered for those who bought those expensive DX lenses.
> ...


 
But, they Do not fit on a FF, they hit the mirror and cannot be mounted for that purpose. Why have a crop mode for lenses that cannot be mounted?

As far as 3rd party lenses that will mount, I do not see Canon doing anything to support or encourage buyers of the competition.


----------



## dlleno (Apr 11, 2012)

pwp said:


> I shoot 1D4 bodies and will miss the x1.3 crop of the APS-H sensor. It's going to COST me.
> My 300 f/2.8 will lose an effective 90mm on the FF 1DX bodies which I have on pre-order.
> 
> The pricey required solution is a new 400 f/2.8II. I _like _APS-H.
> ...



I hear you... I may be out of touch with 1DX rumors here, so is it confirmed that "H" is going away? Interestingly enough, if the 1dx is a 27mp FF then it will equal the pixel density of the 1D4 and you can crop the FF images in post to mimic the 1.3x crop and still get 16mp "on the bird".


----------



## elflord (Apr 11, 2012)

woollybear said:


> I did some back of the envelope math...and I'm not buying the cost of sensor reasoning.
> 
> If Canon is using a 300mm wafer, they will get roughly 80 sensor dies at full frame and 215 sensors at APC-C. (Don't shoot me here, I didn't account for edges, targets, etc. I just divided the area of the wafer by the sensor area). If yields drop for the FF (yields decline more for larger die) and the yield works out to even 4 to 1, then you get about 50 FF and 200 Crop sensors per wafer. If you account for pixel density I would expect the yields to even out (smaller feature sizes would see lower yields). So I think I am being somewhat biased in favor of crops here.
> 
> ...



According to the "overnight flight next to a canon engineer" thread, the sensor is the most expensive component. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1606.0

If you're trying to make sense of prices using a pricing model along the lines of _Retail Price = Manufacturing Cost * Markup_ (or total production cost including amortized R&D, if you like), it won't necessarily make sense. The price is ultimately determined by supply and demand. There is markup because Canon (or any other company) will try to avoid releasing a product that doesn't enable them to make money, and competition between manufacturers constrains the amount of markup but while it's constrained, there is absolutely no guarantee that it will be a fixed multiplier.


----------



## dlleno (Apr 12, 2012)

dlleno said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot 1D4 bodies and will miss the x1.3 crop of the APS-H sensor. It's going to COST me.
> ...



its confirmed I am out of touch. my apologies I could have looked that one up to learn that the 1Dx is 18.1mp. cropping to 1.3x would result in about 10.1 mp "on the bird", or about what the 40D does.

Its clear that Canon is really reluctant to push the pixel density on these FF bodies. just look at the whopping difference in pixel density between the 18mp 1DX and the 18mp 7D!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 12, 2012)

dlleno said:


> yes, what I mean here is that the consequences of pixel density do come into play at normal ISO speeds _at the same FOV_ when pixel peeping. This is evidenced by the fact that a 5D image, when cropped to 1.6x, is a lot closer in actual, realizable IQ to the 7D native image than the pixel calculations would imply. So overall system resolution (I should have used the term IQ instead of resolution) is not just about pixel count. I do think it is astonishing that an 8mp (cropped) image from the 5D3 compares very well with the native 18mp image from the 7D. I wish I had the reference (sorry) but in another thread this topic was discussed, and examples posted showing this.



If you look at the better test carried out by Romy, the 7D actually showed noticeably better detail than the 5D2 when distance limited. One guy's test didn't show as much difference, but his results were the outlier.


----------



## dlleno (Apr 12, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > yes, what I mean here is that the consequences of pixel density do come into play at normal ISO speeds _at the same FOV_ when pixel peeping. This is evidenced by the fact that a 5D image, when cropped to 1.6x, is a lot closer in actual, realizable IQ to the 7D native image than the pixel calculations would imply. So overall system resolution (I should have used the term IQ instead of resolution) is not just about pixel count. I do think it is astonishing that an 8mp (cropped) image from the 5D3 compares very well with the native 18mp image from the 7D. I wish I had the reference (sorry) but in another thread this topic was discussed, and examples posted showing this.
> ...



thanks that is good to know. now I'm even more anxious to know what the next gen crop bodies will be like. perhaps more astonishing to me is that the 5D3 pixel density is approximately the same as the 40D. Clearly, Canon is reluctant to push the pixel density on the FF sensors, but have no such reluctance to do so for the crop bodies. and now, assuming the H crops are going away, Canon may push more IQ technology towards an upper end 1.6x crop. at least one can hope, which is (last I checked) what this site encourages lol


----------



## JR (Apr 12, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > I could be wrong but in terms of cropping a FF sensor, patents may be involved. Nikon is doing it with its FF sensor, but again I believe patents may be involved here.
> ...



I know! But I have done some patents in the past and cropping on a FF (or some aspect of it) is definitively somthing someone could try to patent, at least to make it more difficult for a competitor to replicate (allbeit not impossible!).


----------



## dlleno (Apr 12, 2012)

JR said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > JR said:
> ...



the "art" would be the in-camera implementation, file size management, etc. . I could see a technology patent possibility here... for example a viewfinder that would track the crop selection accurately. Of course, if it were Apple we would see patent application for the shape of the camera body, the right index finger shutter button location, the location of the tripod mount, and the fact that a lens can have a rotating focus ring.


----------



## markIVantony (Apr 12, 2012)

The cool thing is (depending on your perspective), any ideas mentioned here automatically become "prior art", so no one else can get a patent on it after the fact! Of course the idea can still be implemented by a large company, but they can't get the idea patented. We do this frequently - decide the idea isn't worth the time/money to perform a full art search, but at the same time, don't want anyone else to make money from it by patenting it themselves.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 12, 2012)

Why can't the crop guys and FF guys just get along ? Crop sensors allow manufacturers to sell entry-level DSLR's packed with megapixels and all kinds of bells and whistles for a fraction of the cost of FF bodies. Then users get hooked, and drop loads of cash on lenses and accessories. Then users are committed to a system/brand, and continue to buy equipment within that system. Considering that you can get astoundingly good results with a crop body, and many crop consumers aren't even aware how big (or small) the sensors are in their cameras, why would crop sensors ever go away?


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 12, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Why can't the crop guys and FF guys just get along ? Crop sensors allow manufacturers to sell entry-level DSLR's packed with megapixels and all kinds of bells and whistles for a fraction of the cost of FF bodies. Then users get hooked, and drop loads of cash on lenses and accessories. Then users are committed to a system/brand, and continue to buy equipment within that system. Considering that you can get astoundingly good results with a crop body, and many crop consumers aren't even aware how big (or small) the sensors are in their cameras, why would crop sensors ever go away?



The ff guys talk about IQ
The crop guys talk about reach
The APS-H guys get it in the neck from both ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 12, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> The ff guys talk about IQ
> The crop guys talk about reach
> The APS-H guys get it in the neck from both ;D ;D ;D ;D



I like me a good APS-H body! I hope the used 1D4 market takes a dump once the 1Dx comes out. Too bad Canon got rid of the 1.3:1 sensor. It really is a great compromise between the APS-C and FF extremes.


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 12, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > The ff guys talk about IQ
> ...



I'm right there with you. I'd love to trade my 7D for a 1D4 and a some cash. Right now, it's just too much cash, i think about @2500-3000 for the buy and sell on eBay. $1500 and I'd do it. But I don't see it happening. The 1D4 is too good and the 1DX too expensive.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 12, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > The ff guys talk about IQ
> ...



I'm on the APS-H wagon too... we must be masichists 

personally I think a good crop complements a FF very nicely
I just have not been overly thrilled with the 7D sensor when i looked at getting one I decided i'd rather stay with the APS-H.
I am waiting with interest to see what they decide to do with the 7DII if it eventuates or if they kill it off


----------



## Aglet (Apr 12, 2012)

In a related note, I must've missed the white paper on AF-S lenses and why Canon bothered with making the short back focus things at all. I don't see any technical advantage; you get more incident angle of light on the sensor corners resulting in a bit more falloff (w-o adjusting microlenses on the sensor) and it's only slightly less likely to image dust sitting on the AA filter than the longer back focus distance from an EF lens. Would make more sense to leave the same back focus distance as an EF lens and just position the AA filter a little farther from the sensor to reduce dust imaging. Then microlens positioning would also not have to be a compromise if all lenses used similar back focus distance... ignoring rear group focusing changing that anyway. Can anyone enlighten me on this aspect of the design decision? was it just to prevent the N-crowd from adapting Canon glass to their bodies w-o requiring an in-between optic?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 12, 2012)

dlleno said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > dlleno said:
> ...



I think it's more been that they've been limited by processing power, since processing only cares about total MP count and not density, than not wanting high MP on FF, I think. 18MP on APS-C or FF requires the same processing power. But 48MP on FF takes a LOT more processing power than 18MP on APS-C (48MP is 18MP APS-C density scaled to FF).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 12, 2012)

JR said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > JR said:
> ...



well the new 1 D Cinema does it so it's not been patented (thank god! that might've been a new low for the patent office hah (unless the fact they do it for video somehow makes it magically avoid the stills patent haha))


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 12, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > Why can't the crop guys and FF guys just get along ? Crop sensors allow manufacturers to sell entry-level DSLR's packed with megapixels and all kinds of bells and whistles for a fraction of the cost of FF bodies. Then users get hooked, and drop loads of cash on lenses and accessories. Then users are committed to a system/brand, and continue to buy equipment within that system. Considering that you can get astoundingly good results with a crop body, and many crop consumers aren't even aware how big (or small) the sensors are in their cameras, why would crop sensors ever go away?
> ...



;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 12, 2012)

Aglet said:


> In a related note, I must've missed the white paper on AF-S lenses and why Canon bothered with making the short back focus things at all. I don't see any technical advantage; you get more incident angle of light on the sensor corners resulting in a bit more falloff (w-o adjusting microlenses on the sensor) and it's only slightly less likely to image dust sitting on the AA filter than the longer back focus distance from an EF lens. Would make more sense to leave the same back focus distance as an EF lens and just position the AA filter a little farther from the sensor to reduce dust imaging. Then microlens positioning would also not have to be a compromise if all lenses used similar back focus distance... ignoring rear group focusing changing that anyway. Can anyone enlighten me on this aspect of the design decision? was it just to prevent the N-crowd from adapting Canon glass to their bodies w-o requiring an in-between optic?



i'mnot 100% sure but I think only 1 or maybe 2 of their EF-S actually even really make true helpful use of it at all, I might be wrong on this though, not so certain


----------



## Aglet (Apr 12, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I think it's more been that they've been limited by processing power, since processing only cares about total MP count and not density, than not wanting high MP on FF, I think. 18MP on APS-C or FF requires the same processing power. But 48MP on FF takes a LOT more processing power than 18MP on APS-C (48MP is 18MP APS-C density scaled to FF).



nuther related note, I think processing requirements go up somewhat if people also select in-camera hi-iso NR. Sure can slow down the shooting speed if I accidentally turn that on... clogs the buffer faster anyway. I reduce in-camera overhead with all processing off, raw only, no jpgs either... unless I need _really_ long bursts at full speed then raw gets turned off and jpg compression to minimum.

if sensor density goes up, not only does the size of the data array increase but the required noise reduction processing going on, even for the raw files, will add a bit more overhead compared to a larger pixeled (lower noise) sensor. Yet another reason to wish for less sensor noise at all sensitivities.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 12, 2012)

Aglet said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's more been that they've been limited by processing power, since processing only cares about total MP count and not density, than not wanting high MP on FF, I think. 18MP on APS-C or FF requires the same processing power. But 48MP on FF takes a LOT more processing power than 18MP on APS-C (48MP is 18MP APS-C density scaled to FF).
> ...



couldn't agree more, I have absolutely no interest in any in camera processing It would be nice to have 1 option
- Disable all in camera processing so you dont have to individually hunt down and turn off all the rubbish thats on by default.
- all this in camera lens correction blah blah blah just slows it all down more and produces substandard results

an in camera processor is never going to have a hope of competing against proper desktop editing and thats just from a pure processing power available standpoint. 
I could be wrong but i'm fairly sure in camera processor are still essentially running on old DOS system architecture.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Apr 12, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > In a related note, I must've missed the white paper on AF-S lenses and why Canon bothered with making the short back focus things at all. I don't see any technical advantage; you get more incident angle of light on the sensor corners resulting in a bit more falloff (w-o adjusting microlenses on the sensor) and it's only slightly less likely to image dust sitting on the AA filter than the longer back focus distance from an EF lens. Would make more sense to leave the same back focus distance as an EF lens and just position the AA filter a little farther from the sensor to reduce dust imaging. Then microlens positioning would also not have to be a compromise if all lenses used similar back focus distance... ignoring rear group focusing changing that anyway. Can anyone enlighten me on this aspect of the design decision? was it just to prevent the N-crowd from adapting Canon glass to their bodies w-o requiring an in-between optic?
> ...



Well, not allowing it to mount on a FF body does help some in the lens design & production costs. They don't have to worry about the edges quite as much, since the crop sensor won't necessarily fill up the circle that the lens produces. 

Also, being cynical, it lets them charge some users twice. Once for the couple of lenses they buy with the crop camera (after all, EF-S is 'optimized' for their camera!), and second when they go up to FF or realize that they EF-S lenses, by and large, don't have anywhere near the quality of the L lenses and so they go off and buy the L glass.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Apr 12, 2012)

dlleno said:


> ok, yes I get that in today's market, the crop sensors are less expensive, and that it is cheaper to produce many, smaller sensors (more revenue from the same silicon substrate). for that reason I don't see the crops going away soon.
> 
> but the advantages of the smaller sensors (reach) are (currently at least) overshadowed by the consequences of pixel density -- large sensors put more pixels on the image with lower pixel density, which is why the IQ is higher. captain obvious at your service



The extra reach isn't a result of the smaller sensor, but of the higher pixel density.

As example, There's no difference between taking a photo with a 5Dmk2 & cropping to 40% and taking the photo with a 20D (the rest being equal, including the lens), as 40% of the 5Dmk2's 21.1MP is almost identical to the 20D's 8.25MP.

The benefit of crop factor is in price, both for the body and [up to certain focal lengthes] lenses smaller image circle.


----------



## dlleno (Apr 12, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



true indeed. Beyond that, there are noise and ISO compromises that come with high pixel density, although Sony is demonstrating state-of-the-art advances there, in the Nikon D800, and Canon may be behind in that race. That aside, the 7D really pushed the pixel density envelope to new levels, I'm presuming at the cost of noise and ISO performance, which the market apparently is willing to bear or even drive, as the megapixel wars seem to be most prevalent within markets that don't care as much about those things. I wonder, accepting the demise of "H"bodies, how Canon will please the pro wildlife crowd. 1D4 still fills that niche today, but going forward wildlifers switching to 1DX will have to make up that reach factor with glass. not a bad, revenue-generating strategy.


----------



## dlleno (Apr 12, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> couldn't agree more, I have absolutely no interest in any in camera processing It would be nice to have 1 option
> - Disable all in camera processing so you dont have to individually hunt down and turn off all the rubbish thats on by default.
> - all this in camera lens correction blah blah blah just slows it all down more and produces substandard results
> 
> ...



+1 why on earth did in-camera lens correction happen I'll never know. Unless the target is jpg shooters with inexpensive lenses and no off-camera processing, in which case the need isn't as intense anyway!


----------



## dlleno (Apr 12, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I like me a good APS-H body! I hope the used 1D4 market takes a dump once the 1Dx comes out. Too bad Canon got rid of the 1.3:1 sensor. It really is a great compromise between the APS-C and FF extremes.



+1!



> I'm on the APS-H wagon too... we must be masichists
> 
> personally I think a good crop complements a FF very nicely
> I just have not been overly thrilled with the 7D sensor when i looked at getting one I decided i'd rather stay with the APS-H.
> I am waiting with interest to see what they decide to do with the 7DII if it eventuates or if they kill it off



absolutely right, and many are right behind you. The 7D is an anomaly to me -- it offers substantial contributions in areas important to wildlifers, but no real game changer in the sensor itself, which appears to have just pushed pixel density to new levels for little benefit. Yet, if they totally abandon the high performance crop body altogether, then wildlifers are going to have to carry more glass as they move from 1D4 to the 1Dx. 

has their been an announcement such that we are certain Canon is committed to the demise of H bodies?

There appears to be a market need for a high performance crop body; what I don't get is how (or if) Canon will fill that need if they are abandoning the 1.3. It seems unlikely to me that we would see a 1.6x body as a worthy successor to the mighty 1D4, but if thats what Canon produces I doubt it will have a 7 in the name. Canon's next move (or lack of one) in the performance crop body arena will be as newsworthy as the 5D3


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 12, 2012)

If you can afford a full frame body and lenses but want the reach of aps-c, just get both. Two bodies, one FF and one APSc makes a good pair and diversify your focal lengths, Especially if your a prime shooter. 

Why was the 5D2 and 7D combo do popular? It was because their a great team together.


----------



## funkboy (Apr 12, 2012)

Well, here's my €0.02 on the subject from the last major thread on this:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3295.msg69482#msg69482

Oh, what the heck, I'll cross-post:



> Personally I'd be extremely happy with 10-12 1DX pixels in an APS-C camera with a viewfinder a little better than the 7D (if that's possible, I know it's already 100%/1.0x).
> 
> I think the yearning for FF is mostly based on:
> 
> ...


----------



## Leon (Apr 12, 2012)

> I'm not a physicist but would it not be possible to produce a sensor that would operate in more than one pixel density mode (this is a Canon forum so don't fault me for missing something about the D800 here...). I don't mean crop I mean pixel density -- for example, operate the sensor at FF 22mp with all the low light advantages thereunto appertaining, and also at FF 38mp to advantage the situations that the crop bodies depend on -- with favorable light, you get higher resolution when you don't need high-ISO, AND you can crop down to 1.6x for more "reach" and still have a 15mp image that no other natively-cropped body would be able to rival.



I'm not a physicist but would it not be possible to produce a car that would operate in more than one car length mode? I don't mean glue 2 cars together, I mean car length -- for example, operate the car at 3m length with all the parking advantages thereunto appertaining, and also at 5m length to advantage the situations that the big cars depend on -- with a lot of space you get more people in when you don't need to fit into a small parking spot, AND you can size down to 3m for more "squeeze" and still have a 5m car that no other natively-small car would be able to rival.

"I still don't get the crop debate" - now this doesn't come as much as a surprise to me.

Edit: I know I'm bad, but COME ON.


----------



## KeithR (Apr 12, 2012)

Aglet said:


> compared to a larger pixeled (lower noise) sensor.



Larger pixels _do not_ mean lower noise - not now, not then, not ever.


----------



## woollybear (Apr 12, 2012)

> 'm not a physicist but would it not be possible to produce a car that would operate in more than one car length mode? I don't mean glue 2 cars together, I mean car length -- for example, operate the car at 3m length with all the parking advantages thereunto appertaining, and also at 5m length to advantage the situations that the big cars depend on -- with a lot of space you get more people in when you don't need to fit into a small parking spot, AND you can size down to 3m for more "squeeze" and still have a 5m car that no other natively-small car would be able to rival.



And I don't need the big motor or transmission or lights thing. I only operate at one speed and never turn or reverse. And with a properly sized car who needs headlights at night. If the car is designed right you should be able to see fine without them. All those extra features are expensive and are for lazy people who don't really know how to drive anyway.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2012)

Aglet said:


> In a related note, I must've missed the white paper on AF-S lenses and why Canon bothered with making the short back focus things at all. I don't see any technical advantage; you get more incident angle of light on the sensor corners resulting in a bit more falloff (w-o adjusting microlenses on the sensor) and it's only slightly less likely to image dust sitting on the AA filter than the longer back focus distance from an EF lens. Would make more sense to leave the same back focus distance as an EF lens and just position the AA filter a little farther from the sensor to reduce dust imaging. Then microlens positioning would also not have to be a compromise if all lenses used similar back focus distance... ignoring rear group focusing changing that anyway. Can anyone enlighten me on this aspect of the design decision? was it just to prevent the N-crowd from adapting Canon glass to their bodies w-o requiring an in-between optic?



You seem to be mixing up to different concepts. The reason you can adapt Canon to Nikon and not Nikon to Canon has nothing to do with EF vs. EF-S lenses, it's the flange to focal plane distance - that applies all Canon EF lenses. Lenses designed for a longer flange to focal length distance than the body cam be adapted without optics or losing infinity focus. For the lenses with a shorter back focus (where the rear elements protrude past the mount, into the body) that makes the distance shorter not longer. 

The EF-S lenses are designed as such for several reasons. FWIW, according to Canon the -S in EF-S stands for small image circle, not short back focus (yes, I know you read different on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is wrong). That smaller image circle means less glass is required, meaning lens can be produced more cheaply. Also, it makes designing wide and ultrawide lenses much easier. For example, compare the distortion you get on the 16-35L @ 16mm on FF vs. the EF-S 10-22mm @10mm on APS-C - same AoV, but the EF lens has massive barrel distortion, while the EF-S lens has relatively little.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 12, 2012)

dlleno said:


> There appears to be a market need for a high performance crop body; what I don't get is how (or if) Canon will fill that need if they are abandoning the 1.3. It seems unlikely to me that we would see a 1.6x body as a worthy successor to the mighty 1D4, but if thats what Canon produces I doubt it will have a 7 in the name. Canon's next move (or lack of one) in the performance crop body arena will be as newsworthy as the 5D3



I'd have to agree. There are a ton of sports shooters and photo journalists that have used APS-H bodies for years. Now that Canon is going to abandon that sensor, the only suitable body for them is the 1Dx. While the 1Dx is an impressive machine, if I were an APS-H shooter, I wouldn't be too thrilled about paying $6,800 for a full-frame body when I'm accustomed to paying $4,500-$5,000 for a 1.3x body. 

That said, sports shooters spend loads of money on gear, so maybe that extra $1,800 isn't a big deal to them.


----------



## K-amps (Apr 12, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > There appears to be a market need for a high performance crop body; what I don't get is how (or if) Canon will fill that need if they are abandoning the 1.3. It seems unlikely to me that we would see a 1.6x body as a worthy successor to the mighty 1D4, but if thats what Canon produces I doubt it will have a 7 in the name. Canon's next move (or lack of one) in the performance crop body arena will be as newsworthy as the 5D3
> ...



$1800 may not be a big deal for the unless it was already earmarked for a kilobuck lense upgrade needed for the lost reach... ;D


----------



## Leon (Apr 12, 2012)

woollybear said:


> > 'm not a physicist but would it not be possible to produce a car that would operate in more than one car length mode? I don't mean glue 2 cars together, I mean car length -- for example, operate the car at 3m length with all the parking advantages thereunto appertaining, and also at 5m length to advantage the situations that the big cars depend on -- with a lot of space you get more people in when you don't need to fit into a small parking spot, AND you can size down to 3m for more "squeeze" and still have a 5m car that no other natively-small car would be able to rival.
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't need the big motor or transmission or lights thing. I only operate at one speed and never turn or reverse. And with a properly sized car who needs headlights at night. If the car is designed right you should be able to see fine without them. All those extra features are expensive and are for lazy people who don't really know how to drive anyway.



What's your point?


----------



## Aglet (Apr 12, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > In a related note, I must've missed the white paper on AF-S lenses and why Canon bothered with making the short back focus things at all. I don't see any technical advantage; you get more incident angle of light on the sensor corners resulting in a bit more falloff (w-o adjusting microlenses on the sensor) and it's only slightly less likely to image dust sitting on the AA filter than the longer back focus distance from an EF lens. Would make more sense to leave the same back focus distance as an EF lens and just position the AA filter a little farther from the sensor to reduce dust imaging. Then microlens positioning would also not have to be a compromise if all lenses used similar back focus distance... ignoring rear group focusing changing that anyway. Can anyone enlighten me on this aspect of the design decision? was it just to prevent the N-crowd from adapting Canon glass to their bodies w-o requiring an in-between optic?
> ...



Thanks for clearing some of that up, NA. I did not clarify flange to focal-plane distance vs actual rear-element to focal plane distance. We both know what I meant tho. 

So, if I'm understanding what you're saying here, the reduced back focus distance of EF-S lenses allows them to do a better job of making the wider angle lenses, necessary for crop sensor bodies, than they could if they had to use the longer back focus distance.

So EF-S was an engineering decision to improve WA lens geometry performance by, allegedly, allowing a simpler design process.
I guess that makes sense. I just don't know enough about lens design to know why it's more difficult to do that considering all the light-bending going on already.

as for the 16-35mm vs the 10-22mm - I don't have the 16-35 but do have a 17-40mm and, on my FF, the distortion from it I find preferable to the very strong anamorphic distortion of the 10-22mm at similarly wide settings. When it comes to these very wide angle optics, there must be a number of tradeoffs that need to be made regarding what sort of residual distortions are retained. Similarly, I expected that these same criteria would be similar for whatever back focus distance was used. It likely comes down to cost/benefit of simpler-cheaper to make good AF-S products in large numbers vs similar optics without the reduced back focus distance.


----------



## dlleno (Apr 12, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > There appears to be a market need for a high performance crop body; what I don't get is how (or if) Canon will fill that need if they are abandoning the 1.3. It seems unlikely to me that we would see a 1.6x body as a worthy successor to the mighty 1D4, but if thats what Canon produces I doubt it will have a 7 in the name. Canon's next move (or lack of one) in the performance crop body arena will be as newsworthy as the 5D3
> ...



how are we certain that Canon will abandon the H? I don't mean what is the weight of evidence I mean what established the certainty.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2012)

Aglet said:


> So, if I'm understanding what you're saying here, the reduced back focus distance of EF-S lenses allows them to do a better job of making the wider angle lenses, necessary for crop sensor bodies, than they could if they had to use the longer back focus distance.



Just to clarify, I think that's part of it, but most of the advantage comes from the smaller image circle, less from the short back focus. If you look at 3rd party equivalents to the 10-22mm (Tokina 11-16, Sigma 8-16), they have the small image circle but the optics don't extend beyond the lens mount (and thus, they can be mounted on FF cameras with no physical risk to the mirror, though obviously they vignette severely).


----------



## grahamsz (Apr 12, 2012)

woollybear said:


> I did some back of the envelope math...and I'm not buying the cost of sensor reasoning.
> 
> If Canon is using a 300mm wafer, they will get roughly 80 sensor dies at full frame and 215 sensors at APC-C. (Don't shoot me here, I didn't account for edges, targets, etc. I just divided the area of the wafer by the sensor area). If yields drop for the FF (yields decline more for larger die) and the yield works out to even 4 to 1, then you get about 50 FF and 200 Crop sensors per wafer. If you account for pixel density I would expect the yields to even out (smaller feature sizes would see lower yields). So I think I am being somewhat biased in favor of crops here.



I'm not sure that smaller feature sizes are likely to really reduce the yield that much, i suspect fixed defects on the wafer are more likely and i think your yield calculations sound reasonable (though it's anyone's guess how many of those defects really exist).

I suspect the features on the 5D3 and 7D sensors will probably be quite similarly sized. Just because the photosites are larger doesn't mean you can afford to make the other circuitry larger.

It depends more on economies of scale than anything else, I suspect Canon can probably sell 10x the number of crop sensors so that drives their price down more. It'll be interesting to see if they make a low MP full frame rebel. I've always wondered how many potential 5d sensors are rejected just because they have too many photosite defects. Perhaps with some clever mapping and downsampling they could be reworked to make a rebel sensor


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 12, 2012)

dlleno said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > dlleno said:
> ...



The interesting thing is that if you check SNR, the 7D actually does a trace better than the 5D2 and couple that with the way the D800 does and it's the tech that makes much more difference than the pixel density (although the 7D CFA cheats even more by using split greens). Plus with more pixel density you can do advanced NR which is better than a simple downsize (as a lower MP cam basically is). So long as you don't take wildly different photosite densities you don't really seem to lose by higher MP at high ISO and, if anything, you seem to gain at low ISO DR.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 13, 2012)

dlleno said:


> how are we certain that Canon will abandon the H? I don't mean what is the weight of evidence I mean what established the certainty.



I suppose the evidence is more circumstantial than definitive. With Canon announcing that the 1Dx represents an amalgam of the 1D and 1Ds lines, many have interpreted this to mean that they won't be updating the 1D line. Plus, new 1DIVs are very hard to find in stock. I do hope the APS-H platform resurfaces some day because it's a great sensor.


----------



## dlleno (Apr 13, 2012)

1Dx, 1D4 successor, 5D3, 7D2, rebel. no xxd!


----------



## Aglet (Apr 13, 2012)

dlleno said:


> 1Dx, 1D4 successor, 5D3, 7D2, rebel. no xxd!



60D still has some life in it yet. it's a good little camera... with icky non-tactile buttons.


----------



## dlleno (Apr 13, 2012)

yes, no argument there; I just don't quite understand the need for three distinct 1.6x product lines. Even from the marketing perspective they've forced themselves into corner, imho, because it would be silly to have both a 70D and a 7D. My guess is that forcing this corner was no accident at the time, lets not forget that this decision was made probably 4 years ago.

But while we're speculating... consider that the 7D could be a marketing experiment, to test the acceptance of a premium 1.6x body, which we all recognize the naming convention suggests. 7D was either successful or it was not:

If 7D was successful, it either hurt xxD sales or it didn't. If it hurt xxD sales, then Canon will likely merge the two lines into one, and they have a marketing decision as to what to call it, but odds are that 7D would win. If it did not hurt xxD sales, then Canon has a real dilemma, to effectively position both lines and name them something without conflict.

if 7D was not successful, then they just drop it, and focus on the xxD as the premium 1.6 body. CR -1 here of course I have no data to back this up; just engaging in amusing speculation.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 15, 2012)

Is there any way to look at the sales figures of the 7D compared to the other crop bodies? If I had to guess, I'd say the 7D has been quite successful. I've come across many 7D owners that are very happy with them, and sports shooters often pair them up with their 1D bodies. I can't see why Canon would drop it. Since there are so many APS-C lines, it seems logical to just merge the 7D into the xxD line. IMHO, the 7D has always been more of a successor - price and feature wise - to the 50D. I can't figure out what the reasoning was behind cheapening up the xxD line.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 15, 2012)

Any "conflict," "problem," "dilemma" exists only in the overactive imaginations of persons posting on this site.

I just did a quick check of the Amazon best sellers. In one form or another (with lens, without lens, with other gizmos, etc) the 60D is listed in six slots in the top 100 best sellers for DSLRs. The 7D in various forms has four slots in the top 100. The 7D has been in the top 100 for 952 days, the 60D for 587 days. Both roughly for the entire time they have been available.

Canon knows what they are doing. They have slotted these models precisely where they wanted them to be and it has been very successful. Why would they screw with that success?

There will be a 7DII that fits in the top of the line of the APS-C bodies and about 9 months after the 7DII there will most likely be a 70D that slots just above the Rebels. It is what Canon does and it's what Nikon does with its APS-C models as well. They do it because it's smart business and its working.

The only thing that doesn't make sense is the fixation some people have with thinking they know more about marketing than Canon does. 

Case closed. Move on people.


----------



## funkboy (Apr 15, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Canon knows what they are doing. They have slotted these models precisely where they wanted them to be and it has been very successful. Why would they screw with that success?
> 
> There will be a 7DII that fits in the top of the line of the APS-C bodies and about 9 months after the 7DII there will most likely be a 70D that slots just above the Rebels. It is what Canon does and it's what Nikon does with its APS-C models as well. They do it because it's smart business and its working.



& that, as they say, is that. The only open end I can see on the horizon is what they're going to call the bloody things once they run out of numbers i.e. after 90D & 950D.


----------



## Musouka (Apr 15, 2012)

funkboy said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Canon knows what they are doing. They have slotted these models precisely where they wanted them to be and it has been very successful. Why would they screw with that success?
> ...



10DX & 100DX ;D


----------



## liberace (Apr 15, 2012)

dlleno said:


> yes, no argument there; I just don't quite understand the need for three distinct 1.6x product lines. Even from the marketing perspective they've forced themselves into corner, imho, because it would be silly to have both a 70D and a 7D. My guess is that forcing this corner was no accident at the time, lets not forget that this decision was made probably 4 years ago.
> 
> But while we're speculating... consider that the 7D could be a marketing experiment, to test the acceptance of a premium 1.6x body, which we all recognize the naming convention suggests. 7D was either successful or it was not:
> 
> ...



Eh? Think on this for a second. Would you ever write "If the 1Dx hurts 5D Mark III sales, then it is not a success." ?

Of course not. In no way, shape or form would Canon view a sale of a 1Dx over a 5D Mark III as a bad thing. They've upsold the customer to a more expensive model. It's exactly the same with the 7D and 60D. Canon would view the sale of a 7D over a 60D as a success, not a failure.

The mind boggles on what some people come up with to be honest.


----------



## dlleno (Apr 16, 2012)

I do acknowledge that even on on a rumors board may be difficult to distinguish between amusing speculation or even overactive imagination . But this is a rumors board -- where speculation about things unknown is acceptable. If the speculation that 7D might have been a marketing experiment is too astonishing, or if there is some rule that speculation has to be accompanied by a certain reverence for a company that always anticipates the market correctly and never balances volume with margin to maximize profit, then peace be unto you. I was only implying that not all up-sells make more profit, and that companies do look at sales data to evaluate their product line strategy. 

not everyone on a rumors board posts because they think they are right or to convince others of the same.


----------

