# 7DII and D400 Specs



## unfocused (Feb 25, 2013)

There is an interesting letter over on DPReview http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3387936#forum-post-50901841 that purports to be from Nikon Europe that unequivocally states that the D7100 will not be Nikon's flagship APS-C format camera.

On paper, the D7100 is impressive. If Canon responds with something close in the 70D, it makes me wonder what they'll put in the 7DII. I'm not sure the current rumored spec list for the 7DII would be sufficient to justify an $800 difference in cost.

On the other hand, I keep wondering if the 70D and 7DII will share the same sensors (Or for that matter, if the D7100 and D400 will as well). There is a part of me that thinks Canon may differentiate the two by offering slightly fewer megapixels but better low-light performance in the 7D, as they have done with the ID-X.

Hard to say. I just thought the letter was interesting and worth starting a thread for people to consider what it might mean for the 70D and 7DII.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 25, 2013)

unfocused said:


> There is a part of me that thinks Canon may differentiate the two by offering slightly fewer megapixels but better low-light performance in the 7D, as they have done with the ID-X.



That would make the 7DII a more interesting offering, from my perspective. If it can come within 1.3 stops of the 1D X (i.e., right at the theoretical difference between APS-C and FF, vs. the currently greater advantage of the 1D X), coupled with a high-density AF sensor (e.g. 41 points with 20 crosses) and improved metering, that'll be an impressive camera...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > There is a part of me that thinks Canon may differentiate the two by offering slightly fewer megapixels but better low-light performance in the 7D, as they have done with the ID-X.
> ...


That would be awesome ... I do hope 7D II will be a 1.3x crop sensor


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 25, 2013)

I believe that Canon has a 7D MK II designed, perhaps with two or three variations, but will not select the final configuration until they find out how Nikon is going. That will likely happen long before a Nikon announcement, and may have happened already. The differences are likely to be in the sensor and in firmware / features, so it will not affect most of the camera pieces in the body or the electronics. It does take a while to ramp up production of sensors though, they likely need 150,000 in the first batch.


----------



## x-vision (Feb 25, 2013)

unfocused said:


> On paper, the D7100 is impressive. If Canon responds with something close in the 70D ...



I wish ... but I doubt it. 
Considering how lame the 6D is, I don't see Canon making the 70D a worthy competitor to the D7100. 
In fact, just the opposite. I'm expecting the 70D to get Revel-ized even further.
Of course it will also be priced lower. Maybe $900-950 at introduction. 



> ... it makes me wonder what they'll put in the 7DII. I'm not sure the current rumored spec list for the 7DII would be sufficient to justify an $800 difference in cost.



Yup. A lot of people will inevitably compare the 7DII to the D7100. 
If the 7DII value is not there, many potential buyers will likely wait for the price to fall before buying. 



> There is a part of me that thinks Canon may differentiate the two by offering slightly fewer megapixels but better low-light performance ...



That would make way too much sense. 8)
I'm 100% with you on this one, of course.


----------



## catfish252 (Feb 25, 2013)

If the rumored specs for the 7D Mk II are fairly accurate and I hope they are, I can't see anyone comparing it to the Nikon D7100. Spec wise the cameras are too far apart. The 7100 is a very nice enthusiasts cameras while the 7D is and probably will always be Canon's Pro cropped sensor camera. I shoot with a Nikon D300s and have been waiting for years it seems for the D300s follow-on to be announced, should Nikon shoot themselves in the foot and not announce a competitive camera to the 7D Mk II like many Nikon users are saying I believe it will be time to jump ship and get the new 7D Mk II. The leaked specs on the new 7D will make that one fantastic camera. I look forward to seeing it announced, hopefully soon. One Japanese publication says the D400? will be announced in June, The 70D in March and The 7D Mk II in Aug/Sept. I hope they are right.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 25, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



AMEN BROTHER!


----------



## rs (Feb 25, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


By 1.3 stops, I believe Neuro meant the ISO performance. 1.3 stops equates to the difference between ISO 256 and ISO 100 - which is the theoretical difference between a 1.6x crop APS-C camera and FF - this is due to the 2.56 times greater surface area (read: light gathering area) of FF.

Canon may change tack, but so far they haven't once changed the size of a sensor in a DSLR line. If a camera comes out named 7D mk II, it's very likely to be 1.6x crop.

Ps - I really hope Canon resist the temptation to take their 1.6x crop sensor up to 24mp. It'll suffer from softness due to diffraction from f6.0 onwards - mount an f5.6 lens on there and you've got little in the way of options. Even the legendary 300/2.8 II with a 2x TC III will underperform, and leave you with just one aperture option if you want to attempt to utilise all of those megapixels. Leave the MP lower, and let those lower processing overheads allow them to push the hardware of the small mirror and shutter to its limits.


----------



## pj1974 (Feb 26, 2013)

rs said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



_"Amen!" _ to that!

I certainly don't hope (and neither do I see there being any logic or proof) that the 7DmkII will be a 1.3x crop sensor.

But if it's noise performance is within 1.3x (one and third stops) of the 1DX (or 6D) - I would be happy 

No need for 24MP, 18 is fine by me (if they're sharp). I have some great lenses for my 7D - including L glass and some awesome EF-S specific lenses. 

The 1.3x day is over. Either FF or 1.6x crop for Canon. Roll on *actual* annoucements. The rumoured specs for the 7DmkII look spectacular! 

Happy photo-shooting everyone! 8)

Paul


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 26, 2013)

I just love speculating that the 7D 2 will be APS-H to see the APS-C crowd reactions 

it's like a wind up toy that you wind up and let go and they bounce around all over the place make lots of noise then calm down eventually... until you wind them up again!


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Feb 26, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> I just love speculating that the 7D 2 will be APS-H to see the APS-C crowd reactions
> 
> it's like a wind up toy that you wind up and let go and they bounce around all over the place make lots of noise then calm down eventually... until you wind them up again!


 ;D
But seriously, forgive me for my ignorance, I know you like the APS-H, but are there any particular benefits of the 1.3 crop factor compared to the 1.6 or FF? Or is it a connoisseur thing?


----------



## rs (Feb 26, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > I just love speculating that the 7D 2 will be APS-H to see the APS-C crowd reactions
> ...


APS-H is a nice middle ground; better IQ than 1.6, better reach than FF. On the other hand, its worse IQ than FF and worse reach than crop.

Now FF isn't only a production reality (there were no FF cameras around when Canon introduced the APS-H 1D classic), but it is also capable of very fast frame rates in the shape of the 1D X. And APS-C has an advantage over APS-H other than reach; native lenses.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 26, 2013)

rs said:


> Ps - I really hope Canon resist the temptation to take their 1.6x crop sensor up to 24mp. It'll suffer from softness due to diffraction from f6.0 onwards - mount an f5.6 lens on there and you've got little in the way of options. Even the legendary 300/2.8 II with a 2x TC III will underperform, and leave you with just one aperture option if you want to attempt to utilise all of those megapixels.



Resolution doesn't work like this. In a format, a 24 MP sensor will always out perform an 18 MP sensor whatever aperture you choose. Now even under the best conditions it won't amount to much and may not be immediately obvious in large prints. But it will always be better by some amount. Diffraction is not a hard limit and is not a reason to cap APS-C sensor resolution or to limit your use of apertures.

The current 7D is "diffraction limited" at f/6.9. I regularly use f/8 and f/11, and after post processing even f/16 is fine. More to the point, the 7D is never "worse" than the 10D, 20D, 40D, etc., not even at f/22 or f/32.

High ISO is another non-reason to cap resolution. Noise for an image is determined by technology and total surface area, not pixel size. At least not until you get into the extremely small pixels on some P&S bodies.

The only possible reason to hold back on increasing the resolution is DR. Pixel size is a factor for DR. But if technology eclipses this, my guess is Canon will match the competition. Too many people will see 18 vs. 24 MP as a negative, and Canon's not going to give up that marketing point.

Given the choice I would take 18 MP if it had noticeably higher DR. But that choice may not be what anyone thinks it is, i.e. the DR gain may be less then the resolution gain. And I doubt Canon will give us the choice. Their competitors have settled on 24 MP. You can guess what they will do.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 26, 2013)

rs said:


> APS-H is a nice middle ground; better IQ than 1.6, better reach than FF.



We're at the point of diminishing returns where it really doesn't matter with FF vs. 1.6x. There's hardly a reach gain today with 1.6x. It's there, but you pretty much have to crop even further and then print 24" or larger. With 1.3x in the newest generation of sensors you would never see the gain vs. FF.

Likewise, there's hardly an IQ gain with FF except at high ISO. So the IQ difference between 1.3x and 1.6x, with the sensor tech the 7D2 will have, would be a scientific footnote, not a human observable quantity.

We're long past the days of the 5D vs. the 20D where IQ and reach differences were immediately obvious. 1.3x loses compatibility with numerous lenses and increases costs for no real advantage. It's not coming back. APS-C gives you lower cost bodies and, in some cases, lower cost glass. FF gives you more high ISO room. That's about it.


----------



## rs (Feb 26, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> Resolution doesn't work like this. In a format, a 24 MP sensor will always out perform an 18 MP sensor whatever aperture you choose. Now even under the best conditions it won't amount to much and may not be immediately obvious in large prints. But it will always be better by some amount. Diffraction is not a hard limit and is not a reason to cap APS-C sensor resolution or to limit your use of apertures.


If you need to use apertures which limit resolution, then definitely use them. Having too little DoF will be immediately noticeable at almost any print size. The diffraction caused by such a small aperture will only be noticed by pixel peepers.

If you have an aperture so small that both a high MP body and a low MP body have diffraction, the high MP body will have no advantage. It doesn't matter how finely the sensor can resolve the blur projected by the lens, its still just blur.

While a 24MP sensor with DLA setting in at f6.0 will allow for some lenses to shine at larger apertures, where will this marketing machine stop? If the next round of crop cameras hit 40mp, and then after that 60, will you still be arguing for it to carry on? There comes a point where making EF-S glass good enough to resolve such detail at the large apertures needed to avoid diffraction becomes unaffordable. We're already at the point where the 17-40L and 24-105L cost less than their EF-S counterparts.

However, if you're not interested in utilising those MP, then fine, let the marketing machine carry on and let the unsuspecting owners use their cameras in bliss. But for those than want the extra MP so they can resolve more detail, in all but very select circumstances and with all but the very best glass, they'll be very dissapointed.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Feb 26, 2013)

rs said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...


Ah thanks for explaining. So EF-S lenses don't fit on APS-H Canon cameras?


----------



## insanitybeard (Feb 26, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> Ah thanks for explaining. So EF-S lenses don't fit on APS-H Canon cameras?



No, EF-S lenses can only be used with APS-C crop sensors- the image circle they produce isn't large enough to cover the larger sensor formats. That and the fact that there is an extended 'cap' at the rear of EF-S lenses that projects further back into the mirror box than on full frame EF lenses- if used on a full frame or APS-H sensor the mirror would collide with the back of the lens and not be able to flip up fully out of the way. Having said that..... people have modified some EF-S lenses (10-22 springs to mind) and removed the rear 'cap' and possibly made some other modifications and then used the lens on larger sensor format bodies- in the case of the 10-22 I recall reading you could only use it down to about 14mm at the wide end before either severe vignetting occurred or the mirror collided with the rear lens element!


----------



## AprilForever (Feb 26, 2013)

dilbert said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > There is an interesting letter over on DPReview http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3387936#forum-post-50901841 that purports to be from Nikon Europe that unequivocally states that the D7100 will not be Nikon's flagship APS-C format camera.
> ...



But whats weird is that I saw an official Nikon description of it calling it the new DX flagship. Simply poor communication on the part of marketing, or are they trying to nuke the D300 thang?


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 26, 2013)

Didn't the D300 go out of production a while ago? I assumed Nikon had moved its Dx sensor camera nomenclature to Dxxxx to differentiate them from the full frame line. D400 and D600 aren't numerically that far apart. When the D300 came to market, there was no Dxxxx nomenclature, there was only the D40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 26, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Didn't the D300 go out of production a while ago? I assumed Nikon had moved its Dx sensor camera nomenclature to Dxxxx to differentiate them from the full frame line. D400 and D600 aren't numerically that far apart. When the D300 came to market, there was no Dxxxx nomenclature, there was only the D40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90.


Good point


----------



## rs (Feb 26, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't the D300 go out of production a while ago? I assumed Nikon had moved its Dx sensor camera nomenclature to Dxxxx to differentiate them from the full frame line. D400 and D600 aren't numerically that far apart. When the D300 came to market, there was no Dxxxx nomenclature, there was only the D40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90.
> ...


The D300s took over in mid 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nikon_DSLR_cameras


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 26, 2013)

What's the point in pondering the 7d2 and D400 pthhhh I hold it in good authority the D500 will absolutely rock but fall just short of the 7d3! Of course, the 5d4 and D900 will beat them both soundly, but to each their own.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 26, 2013)

rs said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...


We know ... but looks like you did not understand the point CarlTN was making


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 27, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...


----------



## jrista (Feb 27, 2013)

rs said:


> Ps - I really hope Canon resist the temptation to take their 1.6x crop sensor up to 24mp. It'll suffer from softness due to diffraction from f6.0 onwards - mount an f5.6 lens on there and you've got little in the way of options. Even the legendary 300/2.8 II with a 2x TC III will underperform, and leave you with just one aperture option if you want to attempt to utilise all of those megapixels. Leave the MP lower, and let those lower processing overheads allow them to push the hardware of the small mirror and shutter to its limits.



Once again, this rhetoric keeps cropping up and it is completely incorrect! NEVER, in ANY CASE, is more megapixels bad because of diffraction!  That is so frequently quoted, and it is so frequently wrong. To quote myself:



jrista said:


> Robert Welch said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



The 7D has frequently been the target of the *mythical diffraction softening problem* and the *outresolves all lenses possible problem* on internet forums. I never specifically understood why my 7D was soft until I got my hands on some rental EF 300mm f/2.8 L II, 500mm f/2.8 L II, and 600mm f/2.8 L II lenses. I've used the 300 with 1.4x and 2x TC III's, and the 500 with the 1.4x TC III. IS in all cases was stellar, very sharp and clear, with the one exception being a little bit of visible CA with the 300+2x III. Despite the CA, here is an example (full "crop" and 1:1 pixel peeper on the head) of the 7D with the EF 300mm f/2.8 L II + EF 2x TC III. *The aperture used was f/9, so diffraction has definitely "set in" and is visible given the 7D's f/6.9 DLA.* The subject, in this case a Juvenile Baird's Sandpiper, comprised only the center 25% of the frame, and the 300 f/2.8 II w/ 2x TC STILL did a superb job resolving a LOT of detail:

Final crop (Center 25% of frame):






100% Zoom (1:1 pixel peeping):





The difference between the 7D with my 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L and the Mark II generation telephoto lenses was night and day. It was completely clear to me that the "softness" was purely the ancient lens design (which, at this point, is over a decade for the 100-400), and that Canon's newest generation of lenses thoroughly outperform the 7D's already high-density sensor. In the case of the 100-400mm lens, the softness was not actually due to diffraction...wide open, it was due to optical aberrations, as at f/5.6 an ideal 100-400 should outresolve the sensor. The 100-400mm is just not a super-sharp lens wide open, and it only reaches ideal performance at f/7.1 (at the cost of additional noise and deeper DOF).

I have further examples of the resolving power of Canon's newest Mark II generation of lenses, at least the telephoto lengths. Given my experience with the 500mm @ 700mm with the 1.4x TC, I have no doubt that a 24mp APS-C 7D with any current-generation lens (such as the forthcoming EF 200-400mm, the new EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L, or a potential EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6 L replacement for the current 100-400) they will handily resolve enough detail for a 24mp sensor at apertures wider than f/6. A modernized 100-400 at f/5.6 that sports an MTF around 0.9 should be capable of very sharply resolving detail, even on a 24mp APS-C.


----------



## jrista (Feb 27, 2013)

rs said:


> Ps - I really hope Canon resist the temptation to take their 1.6x crop sensor up to 24mp. It'll suffer from softness due to diffraction from f6.0 onwards - mount an f5.6 lens on there and you've got little in the way of options. Even the legendary 300/2.8 II with a 2x TC III will underperform, and leave you with just one aperture option if you want to attempt to utilise all of those megapixels. Leave the MP lower, and let those lower processing overheads allow them to push the hardware of the small mirror and shutter to its limits.



To quote myself again, simply to show a visual comparison between the 500mm f/4 L II and 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L on the 7D:



jrista said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding the use of teleconverters on APS-C. I use them. Hell, I've used teleconverters with both the EF 300mm f/2.8 L II and the EF 500mm f/4 L II on my 7D. I use both the 1.4x and 2x, and if Canon made a 1.7x, I'd use that too. Primes frequently have far more to offer from an IQ standpoint than sensors do. A lot of people complain about how "soft" the 7D is...that is true, sometimes...when using older lenses. Slap on pretty much ANY Mark II lens on a 7D, and that "soft" disappears, replaced by some of the sharpest detail you've ever seen. The Canon 18.1mp APS-C sensor is a good sensor...however it is a very, very high density sensor. If you use inferior glass with it, *all the flaws OF THE GLASS are revealed*. The only real drawback of the 7D is noise, and then, only at ISO settings above 2500 (and even then, with the increasing availability of advanced noise removal tools, such as Topaz DeNoise 5 (which has stellar random noise removal AND debanding!), high ISO noise is becoming less and less of a problem.)
> ...



I think the visual evidence speaks to itself regarding the sharpness and quality of, say, the EF 300mm f/2.8 L II lens (or any Mark II telephoto lens from Canon.) Canon is not releasing new lenses for the bulk of their lens lineup just for the heck of it. They are releasing new lenses to support their DSLR business for the next decade or two! The addition of IS or throwing in a Fluorite element here and there in the past were only minor updates on decades-old lens designs, and the impact to MTF charts was always minor. This is the first time since Canon introduced the EF mount that they are radically redesigning their L-series lenses to not only be lighter and more ergonomically ideal, but to significantly improve the MTF (resolving power/IQ) of each, as well as improve the AF circuitry to support much more advanced AF units that have found their way into the 1D X and 5D III (and, hopefully, the 7D II). In the past, even some of Canon's best lenses were still only in the range of 0.7 to 0.8 at best, and a bare few ever approached the vaunted 1.0 (the original EF 300mm f/2.8 L comes to mind as the prime example). The lenses released over the last few years, as well as those yet to be released or updated, all produce or will most likely produce MTFs well above 0.9 at best, and the Mark II telephoto lenses all approach 1.0 from center to nearly the edge.

I have no doubt in my mind that Canon is paving the way for 24mp+ APS-C sensors and 60-70mp FF sensors down the road. An extensive lens-lineup upgrade like they are doing is not just on a whim...they NEED the improvements to support the future DSLR, and a 24mp 7D II is probably only the beginning. Personally, I'm very much looking forward to a 24mp APS-C pro-grade camera from Canon. If they manage to achieve similar ISO gains as the 1D X has, it will be an astonishing camera indeed. At 10fps w/ a 61pt AF system on the 7D II, Nikon...who as of yet has not shown much interest in updating the bulk of their lens lineup to support _their_ 24mp APS-C sensors or 36mp FF sensors, won't have anything that will solidly compete with it!


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 27, 2013)

rs said:


> If you have an aperture so small that both a high MP body and a low MP body have diffraction, the high MP body will have no advantage. It doesn't matter how finely the sensor can resolve the blur projected by the lens, its still just blur.



Once again, resolution does not work like this. First, diffraction is not a hard limit. Second, even at extreme apertures where diffraction approximates a hard limit, a higher resolution sensor will still yield superior results. Why? Because the resolution of a system is not the weakest link in the chain. It is computed from a formula using all the links and is always less than the weakest one. Increasing any link results in a higher final resolution, but the final resolution is always less than the weakest component.

Practically speaking the increase may not matter outside of a lab. And for 18 vs. 24 MP I'm guessing it won't matter much outside of a lab test even at f/2.8. But putting a higher resolution component in the chain will never result in worse performance.

I hate the term DLA because it's inaccurate and it conveys the idea of a "hard limit" that goes down as the sensor resolution goes up. It is not at all consistent with the science of optics. And it plays off another issue in general conversation: the portrayal of resolution as a single number. It's not a single number. It's an MTF curve. Your comment "it's sill just blur" illustrates the problem. The 7D is "diffraction limited" at f/6.9. The way you describe this, f/8 produces "blur." The reality is that detail with X contrast at f/6.9 has some value <X contrast at f/8, and can be restored to X contrast with sharpening. I can make f/6.9, f/8, and f/11 24" prints all day long and you won't be able to tell me which is which.

At some point detail is truly lost, i.e. contrast of 0%. But the point is not immediately past the DLA.



> While a 24MP sensor with DLA setting in at f6.0 will allow for some lenses to shine at larger apertures, where will this marketing machine stop? If the next round of crop cameras hit 40mp, and then after that 60, will you still be arguing for it to carry on?



I've seen convincing arguments for 100-200 MP FF sensors, assuming technology allows you to hold the line on noise/DR. Why? Because of another point that's not reflected in simple DLA numbers tossed around on the web: the impact of diffraction is different for different wavelengths of light. And if your sensor design + RAW software takes this into consideration, it can maximize the detail recovered. We will eventually see that point in digital camera design.



> There comes a point where making EF-S glass good enough to resolve such detail at the large apertures needed to avoid diffraction becomes unaffordable. We're already at the point where the 17-40L and 24-105L cost less than their EF-S counterparts.



Which counterparts are you thinking of?



> But for those than want the extra MP so they can resolve more detail, in all but very select circumstances and with all but the very best glass, they'll be very dissapointed.



I'll agree that 18 vs. 24 MP is not a very big deal and is driven by marketing. But sensor resolution is not limited by diffraction in the way you think it is. And we will see even higher resolutions in the future. If a jump could be made today to 35 or 40 MP while holding the line on noise/DR, it would produce observably better prints.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 27, 2013)

jrista said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Ps - I really hope Canon resist the temptation to take their 1.6x crop sensor up to 24mp. It'll suffer from softness due to diffraction from f6.0 onwards - mount an f5.6 lens on there and you've got little in the way of options. Even the legendary 300/2.8 II with a 2x TC III will underperform, and leave you with just one aperture option if you want to attempt to utilise all of those megapixels. Leave the MP lower, and let those lower processing overheads allow them to push the hardware of the small mirror and shutter to its limits.
> ...


Nice pics and you made some very compelling/interesting points ... thanks for sharing.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 27, 2013)

Nice to see those pics again Jrista, though not sure why they wound up in this thread.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 27, 2013)

jrista - point well proven with some great shots!


----------



## Apop (Feb 27, 2013)

Hi, nice comparison!,

Have you also tested the 500 f4 IS?

I wonder how those would perform vs a 500 IS II


----------



## rs (Feb 27, 2013)

jrista said:


> Once again, this rhetoric keeps cropping up and it is completely incorrect! NEVER, in ANY CASE, is more megapixels bad because of diffraction!  That is so frequently quoted, and it is so frequently wrong.


I'm not saying its worse, its just the extra MP don't make any difference to the resolving power once diffraction has set in. Take another example - scan a photo which was a bit blurry - if a 600dpi scan looks blurry on screen at 100%, you wouldn't then think 'let's find out if anyone makes a 10,000dpi scanner so I can make this look sharper?' You'd know it would offer no advantages - at that point you're resolving more detail than is available - weakest link in the chain and all that...



jrista said:


> The aperture used was f/9, so diffraction has definitely "set in" and is visible given the 7D's f/6.9 DLA. The subject, in this case a Juvenile Baird's Sandpiper, comprised only the center 25% of the frame, and the 300 f/2.8 II w/ 2x TC STILL did a superb job resolving a LOT of detail:


You've got some great shots there, very impressive  - and it clearly does show the difference between good glass and great glass. But the f9 300 II + 2x shot isn't 100% pixel sharp like your native 500/4 shot is. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the shot - it's great, and the detail there is still great. Its just not 18MP of perfection great. A 15MP sensor wouldn't have resolved any less detail behind that lens, _but that wouldn't have made a 15MP shot any better._ This thread is clearly going off on a tangent here, as pixel peeping is rarely anything to do with what makes a great photo - its just we are debating whether the extra MP are worth it. And just to re-iterate, great shots jrista 



dtaylor said:


> The reality is that detail with X contrast at f/6.9 has some value <X contrast at f/8, and can be restored to X contrast with sharpening. I can make f/6.9, f/8, and f/11 24" prints all day long and you won't be able to tell me which is which.


While sharpening has the potential to be OK in moderation, just don't take it too far. Its all down to personal taste of course, but I can't stand the output of compact cameras which are way beyond their diffraction limits and have the sharpness cranked all the way up to 11 to try to retain something, but instead they just create ugly halos around edges. Sharpening isn't perfect for recovering detail which isn't there. Something like this offers a glimpse of what might be possible in the future.

However, back to the meaning of my original point, do we really need all these MP? Do you _need_ 24MP from your crop camera? Its not like the early days of digital photography when there were real advantages of increasing the MP - going from the Canon D30 to the Canon D60 represented a very real improvement in quality - going from 3 to 6MP is a very real difference. Going from 18 to 36 MP isn't. We're at the point of diminishing returns now - especially as lenses and physics are now becoming limiting factors, and virtually no-one needs to print anything that big and that detailed. If you really do, a larger format than APS-C will yield more real life improvements at such high MP counts. Marketing is leading this drive into the unneeded.



dtaylor said:


> > There comes a point where making EF-S glass good enough to resolve such detail at the large apertures needed to avoid diffraction becomes unaffordable. We're already at the point where the 17-40L and 24-105L cost less than their EF-S counterparts.
> 
> 
> Which counterparts are you thinking of?


10-22 and 17-55. Admittedly, the 10-22 does have the 17-40 beaten when it comes to detail at larger apertures in the corners, so to call the cheaper L lens comparable is debatable. But the 17-55/24-105 comparison is a good one. The 24-105 when used on FF goes wider, longer, offers more detail, is brighter (f2.8 on crop = f4.5 on FF), and (at least in the UK) cheaper. OK, its vaguely bigger and heavier, but you can't have everything...


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 27, 2013)

Again, not sure why this is going on in this thread now ???


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 27, 2013)

rs said:


> I'm not saying its worse, its just the extra MP don't make any difference to the resolving power once diffraction has set in.



I've pointed out twice now that it actually does. This is not opinion, it's science that was worked out a long time ago. Optical resolution does not work the way the majority of people assume it works, with the weakest link "capping" or "limiting" the entire system to its resolution. The resolution of the total system is always lower than the weakest link. And increasing any component in the chain...not just the weakest...will increase total resolution. Whether the increase is practical and observable is another question entirely, but to wrap your mind around some questions in photography you have to understand how resolution actually works.



> Take another example - scan a photo which was a bit blurry -



False analogy. Here you are changing the target resolution rather than the resolution of a component in the optical system.



> However, back to the meaning of my original point, do we really need all these MP? Do you _need_ 24MP from your crop camera?



I don't "need" it. But it's not going to hurt anything, and it's a step towards higher resolutions that will show noticeable improvements in the large prints I make. Under the best conditions, it might just improve my prints today.


> going from 3 to 6MP is a very real difference. Going from 18 to 36 MP isn't.



Go ahead and compare 36" landscape prints from the 7D (or 5D2/3) and the D800 and say that.



> We're at the point of diminishing returns now - especially as lenses and physics are now becoming limiting factors, and virtually no-one needs to print anything that big and that detailed. If you really do, a larger format than APS-C will yield more real life improvements at such high MP counts. Marketing is leading this drive into the unneeded.



As jrista points out, Canon is revamping their entire lens line because they know where this is heading. Moore's Law isn't going to stop because a few people claim they don't "need" higher resolutions. Granted there are ultimate physical limits, but the end of this road is probably 200 MP FF sensors and the equivalent APS-C sensors. The camera may pre process these images to smaller pixel dimensions for better file sizes, but it will use every pixel in doing so, and the resulting output will be stellar, a match for today's MFDBs. 

Back when I bought my first DSLR, a 10D, you could have said a larger format would serve me better then incremental DSLR improvements. Except that those incremental improvements added up to a 7D that produces 24" prints to rival anything I've ever made or seen with 645 film. I say keep the improvements coming.



> 10-22 and 17-55. Admittedly, the 10-22 does have the 17-40 beaten when it comes to detail at larger apertures in the corners, so to call the cheaper L lens comparable is debatable.



The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 really has the 17-40L beat, and is cheaper.



> But the 17-55/24-105 comparison is a good one. The 24-105 when used on FF goes wider, longer, offers more detail, is brighter (f2.8 on crop = f4.5 on FF), and (at least in the UK) cheaper. OK, its vaguely bigger and heavier, but you can't have everything...



f/2.8 != f/4.5 on FF. I cannot shoot a crop body at f/2.8 and a FF body at f/4.5 and hold the same shutter and ISO. I realize what you're getting at (i.e. FF noise or shallow DoF), but it's still not the same. And I would argue the detail claim as well.

That said, they're basically the same price at B&H.


----------



## jrista (Feb 28, 2013)

rs said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, this rhetoric keeps cropping up and it is completely incorrect! NEVER, in ANY CASE, is more megapixels bad because of diffraction!  That is so frequently quoted, and it is so frequently wrong.
> ...





dtaylor said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not saying its worse, its just the extra MP don't make any difference to the resolving power once diffraction has set in.
> ...



I've explained with some math why what dtaylor is saying is correct. In order to avoid derailing this topic off the *7D vs. D400 specs* discussion, lets move the discussion on diffraction and resolution in cameras like the 7D and 7D II to this thread (just follow the link for the quote):



jrista said:


> I'm starting this thread to continue a tangent from another. Rather than derail the other thread, but in order not to lose the discussion, I thought we could continue it in its own thread. I think there is important information to be gleaned from the discussion, which started when I responded to a comment by @rs:


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 28, 2013)

Regarding crop camera wide angle zooms, as I have said in other threads...the Canon 10-22 lens I rented was terrible in the outer 2/3 of the image at the wider end. No doubt there's a lot of sample variation.

I currently own the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (generation 1). It seems to have more CA than the one I rented in 2011. Again, sample variation.

As I have said before, they may be able to achieve supreme sharpness with $13,000 super telephoto lenses (although that puts an exponentially higher burden on the already compromised autofocus accuracy of a crop camera, in order to make use full use of that higher sharpness...for extreme cropped bird pics, etc.). *But when it comes time to shoot a wide angle image with a 24 MP or higher crop sensor, good luck ever getting sharpness on the level that you could from the same pixel count via a full frame sensor and lens, taking in the same angle of view * Never going to happen...not ever. If it did, the lens would cost more than full frame wide angle lenses, and yet not be designed for them. Again, never going to happen. We'll never see a wide angle zoom rectilinear lens, that goes to 10mm for a crop sensor camera, that will be sharp to the corners wide open, with no CA, and zero "decentering"...and somehow rival the best 14 or 15 mm wide angle full frame zoom. Not going to happen. If it did, it would cost $3500 or more. Who would pay that when it wouldn't even work on a full frame camera? Not many. Maybe some of the same people who buy high end micro 4/3 gear, or compact Panasonic cameras that get branded "Leica".


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> As I have said before, they may be able to achieve supreme sharpness with $13,000 super telephoto lenses



Oh please. jrista's point about Canon updating their lenses is well taken. But there are plenty of lenses which can produce tack sharp results on crop without a $13k price tag. Canon is updating cheaper lenses as well. As sharp as I thought my 70-200 f/4L was, the 70-200 f/4L IS takes it up a notch, just like jrista's experience with mark II L super telephotos. And it's not $13k.



> *But when it comes time to shoot a wide angle image with a 24 MP or higher crop sensor, good luck ever getting sharpness on the level that you could from the same pixel count via a full frame sensor and lens, taking in the same angle of view * Never going to happen...not ever.



Except that it already happens with Sony/Nikon 24 MP sensors, top notch glass, and a little USM.



> We'll never see a wide angle zoom rectilinear lens, that goes to 10mm for a crop sensor camera, that will be sharp to the corners wide open, with no CA, and zero "decentering"...and somehow rival the best 14 or 15 mm wide angle full frame zoom. Not going to happen.



I'll gladly pit a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (good sample) against a Canon 16-35 f/2.8 (good sample).

You keep using that word 'never'. I don't think it means what you think it means ;D

For people who think crop will 'never' do this or 'never' do that, you better spend some time looking at the world of biology. Because eyeballs, both human and animal, routinely do things that you say much larger crop sensors should 'never' be able to do. If our eyes do it, then it's physically possible, and you're a fool to bet against the march of technology and Moore's Law when it comes to the physically possible.

When DSLRs first hit the scene I heard repeatedly that a DSLR would 'never' out resolve 35mm film (happened at 12-15 MP); 'never' produce large prints that could rival MF film (happened with the 5D2, and then the 16/18 MP generation of crop sensors); and 'never' have DR like neg film (today's FF has more DR then all but a couple emulsions). When the 5D was popular I heard that crop would 'never' out resolve it or have better noise (again, happened with the 16/18 crop generation).

Unless a manufacturing break through renders crop obsolete by making FF just as cheap to build (doubtful, but never say never), we will see crop bodies in the future that out perform today's D800. And we will see even smaller sensors in P&S super zooms that rival today's DSLRs. Not if. When. I guarantee you that designers will exploit every advantage they can get as time goes on, including lenses that change shape, liquid lenses that can alter their characteristics like an LCD can alter its display, super dense sensors, custom in camera processors that put today's best graphics cards to shame, etc, etc. We may even see biologically grown sensors, at which point MF might be as cheap as today's Rebels, shattering another 'never'.

So tell me again what's 'never' going to happen. It amuses me.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 28, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > As I have said before, they may be able to achieve supreme sharpness with $13,000 super telephoto lenses
> ...



What amuses me is people who shoot their mouth off but offer no proof. Put up pics you've shot with both lenses, and with a Sony Nex, or whatever you're using...that "proves" it's as sharp as say, a 15mm Zeiss f/2.8 on a D600.

As for the 70-200 IS being sharper than the non IS, I have the non-IS, and it's awfully sharp. I'll put mine up against yours any day of the week young lad. Whoever's lens loses, has to buy the winner a chess set made of all the Nikon and Canon supertelephoto lenses...oh, and we exchange wives and/or girlfriends...and mistresses, for a month...yours won't be coming home after they've played chess with me! If I lose...well...I keep my harem chained in an underground lair out in the woods...they aren't really allowed to leave...but I'll send you my neighbor's wife.


----------



## jrista (Feb 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> As for the 70-200 IS being sharper than the non IS, I have the non-IS, and it's awfully sharp. I'll put mine up against yours any day of the week young lad. Whoever's lens loses, has to buy the winner a chess set made of all the Nikon and Canon supertelephoto lenses...oh, and we exchange wives and/or girlfriends...and mistresses, for a month...yours won't be coming home after they've played chess with me! If I lose...well...I keep my harem chained in an underground lair out in the woods...they aren't really allowed to leave...but I'll send you my neighbor's wife.




Um...*what?!?*  ??? :-\


----------



## rs (Feb 28, 2013)

jrista said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > As for the 70-200 IS being sharper than the non IS, I have the non-IS, and it's awfully sharp. I'll put mine up against yours any day of the week young lad. Whoever's lens loses, has to buy the winner a chess set made of all the Nikon and Canon supertelephoto lenses...oh, and we exchange wives and/or girlfriends...and mistresses, for a month...yours won't be coming home after they've played chess with me! If I lose...well...I keep my harem chained in an underground lair out in the woods...they aren't really allowed to leave...but I'll send you my neighbor's wife.
> ...


I'm glad I've been keeping out of this for the last few hours


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> What amuses me is people who shoot their mouth off but offer no proof.



I'm sorry...what proof did you offer while chanting "never never never"?



> Put up pics you've shot with both lenses, and with a Sony Nex, or whatever you're using...that "proves" it's as sharp as say, a 15mm Zeiss f/2.8 on a D600.



Are we testing specific lens pairs, or crop v FF? Because your 'never never' post implied it could 'never' happen because of something intrinsic to the formats.



> As for the 70-200 IS being sharper than the non IS, I have the non-IS, and it's awfully sharp. I'll put mine up against yours any day of the week young lad. Whoever's lens loses, has to buy the winner a chess set made of all the Nikon and Canon supertelephoto lenses...oh, and we exchange wives and/or girlfriends...and mistresses, for a month...yours won't be coming home after they've played chess with me! If I lose...well...I keep my harem chained in an underground lair out in the woods...they aren't really allowed to leave...but I'll send you my neighbor's wife.



See hjulenissen's link. The IS is sharper once you leave center. And...well...I'm not even going to comment on the rest ???


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 28, 2013)

Hahaha, sorry you all didn't appreciate my humor!! And haven't you seen the lens chess set?

All I can say is, the digital picture had a bad sample, and I have a good sample. I've seen other tests that showed a lot of CA on the non-IS version, as well. Mine doesn't have that either. Go figure. The CA is extremely low throughout the range on mine...basically non-existent. There are a couple of narrow ranges in the focal length where it turns soft-ish wide open at the borders, but overall mine is very sharp...especially from 120-200mm. The problem range is from about 90-110mm. It's not a big deal, and certainly still usable there. So the only real difference is, yours has IS and costs twice as much, and weighs a pound more. That was my point. The IS version is way overpriced for what you get. In that price range, there are a lot of other larger, faster lenses that are more capable, such as for lower light, stronger bokeh, etc. *Then there's the 70-300L...which is a far better lens overall, than the 70-200 f/4 IS...and weighs about the same. Costs barely any more...*


----------



## jrista (Feb 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Hahaha, sorry you all didn't appreciate my humor!!



Well....that is the kind of humor you expect from psychopaths, or maybe a sociopath...or someone with seriously questionable morality...

Either way...I personally, quite honestly, don't know a soul who would have found that funny...


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 28, 2013)

jrista said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Hahaha, sorry you all didn't appreciate my humor!!
> ...



Gee whiz, I'm perfectly sane...sheesh!! I was taking extreme satire to the situation, because I thought it was called for. No need to get overly harsh on me personally! 

And if you know a soul who's ever seen and liked one episode of "family guy" (not that I don't also find much of those episodes disturbing!)...then you _do_ know a soul who might indeed find that funny! Besides, the idea came to me from a horror suspense movie, "kiss the girls"...perhaps it came out before you were born...But anyway, get over it though, and lighten up a bit, ok? Let's not be pronouncing people as immoral sociopaths and psychos, mr. armchair thought policeman (that's a reference to something even older, sorry if that also gets lost on any of you...)


----------



## jrista (Feb 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



"Kiss the Girls", by James Patterson, turned into a movie with Morgan Freeman and Ashley Judd. I am plenty old enough to remember that. It involved a murderous, serial-killing rapist psycho...and, ironically...that was what came to mind when I read your comment. I think everyone here found your comment disturbing... For your own benefit, I'd take that to heart. If you choose not to, that's up to you...I'm certainly not the thought police.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 28, 2013)

jrista said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Hold on, you're saying I should take some piling on in a forum to heart? No offense, but get the heck over yourself...I am here to learn, to share my enjoyment of photography. I _did_ apologize for those who didn't find what I said funny...but I only apologized for it once. And that's all I'm going to do. I'm not going to take some juvenile fault finding and personal piling on to heart...And you are not someone who is worthy of passing personal judgments on me...you don't know a thing about me. And even if you did know me very well, you still wouldn't be worthy of judging me.

It was funny to me, and still is...I'm not a psycho...remotely...I have a vivid imagination...*and I'm pretty sure James Patterson isn't a psycho either.* Yet his mind went there...my mind can go all kinds of places, and I'm even able to think about other things besides the minutia of camera and sensor tests...


----------



## jrista (Feb 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



Wasn't judging...just explaining how it came cross, really for your own benefit in terms of your reputation here. Seems you've decided how your going to respond...so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Sycotek (Mar 1, 2013)

This was an interesting discussion!

Then it went a little south lol!

I loved my 7D and agreed the MK II lenses just shine. If Canon can clean up that read noise/low iso noise then the 45MP FF variant will be a winner.

The D7100 is no way by any means the flagship crop/DX (SD card with 1sec buffer ?? please who you trying to kid?!) So the D400 is inevitable - thankfully.

One thing I learnt going from a 5d3 to a D800 for studio - especially being as skeptical as I was initially - the resolving power and dynamic range/skin tones of that finely packed sensor is amazing. Needs only the best glass and technique and yes to get the most out of it you can't stop down too far - f5.6-f6.3 is peak, more then f8 and you see visible diffraction at 100%. However a little sharpening in post and that clears up nicely and the moment you scale down the image for A4 print its even more impressive.

My D4 - which gets used for everything but studio work - it is awesome in it's own right, however I am constantly wishing for more resolution and very interested to see what the evolution of the 24MP APS-C yields in terms of 48MP FF for the D4x.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 1, 2013)

jrista said:


> Wasn't judging...just explaining how it came cross, really for your own benefit in terms of your reputation here. Seems you've decided how your going to respond...so I'll leave it at that.



You most definitely were, implying I was psychotic or sociopathic. You are taking something meant as only a sarcastic, intentionally chauvenistic attempt at one-upsmanship on my part (which was also meant to be at least a little humorous, simple chest thumping), and intentionally raising it to a level it's not at. Nobody sane is going to approach that post with the kind of hyper-puritanicalism that those who complained about it, have done...and thus judge a man's reputation on it. That's just...Stalinistic...;D

What really happened was, you didn't think my contribution was worthy of your thread, so you and your friends feined amusement of it in a condescending manner which I did not appreciate. How very passive aggressive of you. Well played. I responded in kind. Just like in junior high school...It's really not more complicated than that, so let's not pretend it is. And, you don't determine my reputation on here. This isn't "mean girls", is it? Maybe it is!

I do appreciate your attempt at advice. I plan on holding my tongue on the brutal humor when I can, lest I be cast out of the church of pixelism. I don't come here to make waves...and I respect the knowledge and appreciation of photography and its tools in their various incarnations, available on here...very much!

I look forward to anything else I can learn, and to more sharing about photography.



Sycotek said:


> One thing I learnt going from a 5d3 to a D800 for studio - especially being as skeptical as I was initially - the resolving power and dynamic range/skin tones of that finely packed sensor is amazing. Needs only the best glass and technique and yes to get the most out of it you can't stop down too far - f5.6-f6.3 is peak, more then f8 and you see visible diffraction at 100%. However a little sharpening in post and that clears up nicely and the moment you scale down the image for A4 print its even more impressive.
> 
> My D4 - which gets used for everything but studio work - it is awesome in it's own right, however I am constantly wishing for more resolution and very interested to see what the evolution of the 24MP APS-C yields in terms of 48MP FF for the D4x.



What you found via the D800 regarding "the best glass", is no different than using a crop sensor on that glass, other than the outer third that's not in use. I'm kind of tired of hearing about flesh tones and dynamic range. You aren't going to see much dynamic range on flesh unless it is wet, and lit with harshly bright strobes. Just look at your curve and tell me how much of its area is occupied by lit flesh...not much.

That said, I'm sure your work looks great and you're making good use of the brilliantly mind-blowing D800.

Regarding the D4...did you have any problems with the green tint that a lot of people complained about last year?

As Nikons go, the older 12mp D3s and D700 are what appeal to me. But not enough to buy into Nikon. I did have a tiny P7000 last year...I liked it a lot. Much better for less money, than a G12.

If someone would put the D3s or even the D4 sensor in a Canon body, (and it worked...haha) I would buy it in a heartbeat. The D600 and 800 sensors don't appeal to me at all. To each their own though, of course. They do seem to work well for their intended purpose.


----------



## Sycotek (Mar 1, 2013)

Sorry the only reason i chimed in was to bring in the correlation of higher megapixel aps-c not necessarily being a bad thing, if anything its a testing ground for the next set off FF sensors for each manufacturer. 

The D800 has the same density as a 18 MP APS-C and its performance is stellar. The new generation 24MP aps-c's dont seem too bad either, but will require refined glass much like the 7D did.

Green tint on the D4 no, even my left focus array wasn't a problem.

D800 on the other hand, I got re-calibrated for left focus points being out and I got the workshop to custom calibrate the LCD (definitely green). Luckily in the city I live in we have a Nikon repair shop so its a same day procedure.

I personally dislike the size of the D600 - the camera and the images are nice but I can't physically hold the unit cause its just too darn small.

But that could be said about all Nikon bodies as I find the D4 just a touch too small in comparison to my old 1DX - that grip was perfect for my hand.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 1, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Hahaha, sorry you all didn't appreciate my humor!! And haven't you seen the lens chess set?


I know you meant it in good humor but I think you should have left your bet at "_Whoever's lens loses, has to buy the winner a chess set made of all the Nikon and Canon supertelephoto lenses_." whatever you said after that can easily be misunderstood especially on a forum. Just saying, no offense intened.

I did not know about the Canon/Nikon Chess Set, until I read your post and did a google search ... I thought someone actually sells chess sets made with fake Canon/Nikon lens models ... I got excited and serched teh net to buy a set for myself ... only to be disappointed that it was some Lens Rental guys fun project using real lenses. 

By the way does anyone know if there really is a chess set made out of fake canon/nikon lens models? it would be fun souvenir to have.

But coming to the topic of 7D II and D400 specs ... regardless of which camera is better I will buy the buy the D400 ... because, after getting the 5D MK III, no crop sensor camera seems to satisfy the image quality, low light performance I've come to enjoy in the last 7 months ... but I wanted a one lens solution to those times when I don't want to carry my 5DMK III and all my lenses (especially during vacations, hiking, climbing sink holes etc) so I sold my 60D and got and ordered a brand new Nikon 18-300 VR lens and a refurbished D7000 (together for only US$1300 ... expecting it to be delivered on Sunday morning) ... I only bought the Nikon lens because of its zoom range and the fact that it currently does not have a competitor with the same or better zoom range in that package/price (the 18-300 is on sale now for just $696) ... anyway, I plan to dump the D7000 when/if the D400 releases as I like the feel of D300s and I am assuming that the D400 will have the same build quality ... but if D400 does not get produced than I will get the D7100 (when it is on sale ... maybe Christmas time?) ... *the only 2 reasons why I would buy 7D MKII are:*

1. Canon releases EF-S 18-300+ or an affordable and not so huge EF 28-300 lens
2. If 7D MKII is a APS-H sensor camera


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 1, 2013)

FF has spoiled me but I do miss the reach occasionally.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 1, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> FF has spoiled me but I do miss the reach occasionally.


+1


----------



## K-amps (Mar 1, 2013)

jrista said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Hahaha, sorry you all didn't appreciate my humor!!
> ...



Aw c'mon J ... Carl was being funny... and I did not see him meaning any offense... I laughed at his post ;D It's great having you both on the Forum!


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 1, 2013)

Sycotek said:


> Sorry the only reason i chimed in was to bring in the correlation of higher megapixel aps-c not necessarily being a bad thing, if anything its a testing ground for the next set off FF sensors for each manufacturer.
> 
> The D800 has the same density as a 18 MP APS-C and its performance is stellar. The new generation 24MP aps-c's dont seem too bad either, but will require refined glass much like the 7D did.
> 
> ...



No reason at all to be sorry! 

Regarding the green tint of the LCD, what caused that?

It's interesting you mention the size of the Nikon D600 being too small. I didn't realize it was much different than the 800. That said, I find the 800 (and 700) too big...or rather, *the reach out to the shutter button*, seems like it is perched out on a ledge a long ways ahead of the front of, say a 50mm lens. It's probably not actually that far, but it feels it. I wear a size 10 glove, my fingers aren't overly stubby, but it does feel like you need 6 inch long fingers to get the right grip, on Nikon's grip. By contrast, all of Canon's bodies feel like the same fit in my hand, going from XXD series to 1 series. I notice the increased size and weight of the body, but the grip feels the same. I enjoy the grip, and it's odd how after a while, it feels like you're not holding anything in your hand.

I also think the size of the control dial on the back of the D800 is silly. It's not much bigger than my finger...at least Canon's dial is the right size. I wouldn't want to get used to that.

Nikon seem committed to these ergonomics, so I don't see myself ever using one. I also don't like their lens lineup as much as Canon's, nor do I like the fact that many of their non-super-telephoto lenses, are priced above a similar lens offered from Canon, yet are sometimes an older design, that can even be inferior in some ways. The Nikon 135 f/2, is the best example.

All of that said, I still like what Nikon was able to achieve with the D800. When it first came out, I was trying to decide how much I wanted one, and if I was willing to sell my Canon lenses. It turns out the choice to stay with Canon wasn't very difficult at all, for me. For anyone (like yourself) who likes the D800 more than Canon, I can certainly understand why you would switch! It sounds like you're putting it to good use...no doubt better use than I'm able to do with my photography at the present. I don't blame Canon for this at all though, it's only myself.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 1, 2013)

K-amps said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



Thanks very much K-amps! I'm glad you enjoyed it! And I still wish I had my Krell amp... :'( I've never been happier doing something, than listening to good music on a good system. Even photography isn't nearly as fun, but I feel at least I am being productive and creating something...so that makes up for slightly less enjoyment. Taking pictures is certainly very rewarding and enjoyable in its own right. Listening to music is pure pleasure, pure leisure, so I guess it's not a fair comparison...haha. And cable tv takes up too much of my leisure time now...but I do enjoy it too! I've never learned so much about all aspects of life, culture, history, science, and current events...as from watching tv...hahaha. I try to avoid most of the "reality tv" though! 

This canonrumors website is about as informative as anything else I've found, regarding camera equipment...still can't believe how many serious professionals (much moreso than myself) are on here...and I'm glad to see them. Wisdom and knowledge from experience, given freely, is a blessing!


----------



## K-amps (Mar 2, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



You know what they say about Krells (And Canon Chess Sets) it is better to have owned one and lost it all on a stupid bet then never to have one in the first place.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 2, 2013)

K-amps said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > K-amps said:
> ...



Good point! ;D


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 2, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> By the way does anyone know if there really is a chess set made out of fake canon/nikon lens models? it would be fun souvenir to have.



I was referring to the real chess set, my attempt at humor. The real chess set is so outrageous, not even Warren Buffet's secretary can own one!

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/supertelephoto/lensrentals-chess-set


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 2, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > By the way does anyone know if there really is a chess set made out of fake canon/nikon lens models? it would be fun souvenir to have.
> ...


Looks like the Chinese have not figured out that there is lots of money to be made with such a set ... if they ever do make a chess set made out of Canon & Nikon replica lenses, I bet it would be sold out faster than they could manufacture in the first year.


----------



## Jim K (Mar 2, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> I just love speculating that the 7D 2 will be APS-H to see the APS-C crowd reactions
> 
> it's like a wind up toy that you wind up and let go and they bounce around all over the place make lots of noise then calm down eventually... until you wind them up again!



No, everyone knows that the 5D3 has superior IQ to the 7D so if you want a new APS-H camera call it the 5D *Mark IV*. A smaller, lighter body than a 1 series and the "5D Mark IV" would recall the 1D Mark IV and may help boost sales.


----------



## Sycotek (Mar 5, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Sycotek said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry the only reason i chimed in was to bring in the correlation of higher megapixel aps-c not necessarily being a bad thing, if anything its a testing ground for the next set off FF sensors for each manufacturer.
> ...



No idea what caused the green tint - nikon doesn't officially say it's an issue, the stand that nikon takes is the cameras meters are the most sensitive to date and the wb is more accurate then previous models - I have sat with nps(cps) on so many occasions - unofficially - they have confirmed there is a beta firmware in the works which I will get my dirty hands on to test soon enough that is meant to fix this problem that isn't a problem lol!

I never found the shutter release positioning to be awkward surprisingly - its actually more comfortable on the D4 (enhanced ergos) - I used to miss the control wheel off my canon but tbh the layout on the d800 makes more sense then the d4 in terms of fec control is in an awkward place on the d4 - albeit its in the same spot on the Canon 1 series anyway - on the d800 its instantly accessible with your left index as it hugs the camera body left of the lens mount 

Nikon does need to get rid of that ridiculous D-Pad - they copied canons joystick and improved on it with "click to EL" but then duplicates the controls on the D-Pad, I have asked that each direction become programmable but i suspect that's too much of an ask.

I initially hated nikons lens line up - I refused to believe anything could be better then my old L glass - I really missed my 300 f4 IS (I never needed a f2.8) but I honestly love my 24-70 2.8G (spanks both MK I copies I had on canon) the 70-200 VR II is excellent and but I feel it doesn't quite match the IS MK II in terms of VR - the nikons is better balanced in hand but its about half an inch longer so just a touch harder to pack. I love my 85 1.8G and my 50 1.8G - I miss my 85 1.2L but the 1.8 trilogy from nikon is superb - out resolves nearly all the 1.4 glass on either brand. Regard to the 135 f2 - yes the canon is gorgeous - no question, but I actually rather like the 135 f2 DC - its a very unique lens the defocus control is "interesting".

I still have my canon film bodies - I'll never give them up  but at the end of the day they are all just recording devices - It's just what works better for what you do 

On a side note - if you pick up a d600, d800 or d4 vs their older bodies - the vf markings and controls are Canonesque - by default... older nikon shooters have to revert to non factory settings if they want to use the unit how they always have - for example: how they are used too where the light meter is + 0 - not - 0 + (and seriously it makes no sense being + 0 - right? ) they even allowed for easy ec via thumb controls ala canon. It's as if they built these units with the mindset of allowing for the transitions between the brands. Outside of the missing wheel it felt like second nature for me - honestly. Pick up a D700 and it's all backwards.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 5, 2013)

The Canon 70-200mm f4 and the Canon 70-200 IS f4 are the same optical design in terms of layout. Two ways in which this can be improved is glass type and the coating both of which have improved since the original design and this is likely where improvements were made i.e. resolution improvements by controlling CA etc. Interestingly crown glass cannot be purchased made using lead due to environmental reasons this actually was a backwards step in clarity, unless for military use. 
When thinking about image improvements the whole chain needs to be considered not just the sensor but processing, DAC, OPLF even the air gap between lens and filter before the sensor. Smaller pixels require to be optimised at a different MTF frequency than larger pixels to a degree this means Canon could if they wanted make the EF & the EF-S lenses very different beasts but legacy and inter-operability of EF lenses actually hold this back. Making high performance lenses costs money, lots of money for instance an Arri Alexa cinematography camera is close to a APS-H sensor in size but the images have to be shown on huge screens so any weakness in the lenses is immediately found out hence these lenses range from $ 15000 anywhere up to $100,000 and must work flawlessly between -25C to 40C. 
Truth is most L glass is NOT optimised for the 1.6X cameras but for the larger pixels on the FF cameras but its still better than the bulk of the EF-S lenses that are made more to a price. So optimising lenses to pixel pitch as the MP goes up is crutial. 
Think about this also why did Leica go to S2?


----------



## jrista (Mar 5, 2013)

jeffa4444 said:


> Truth is most L glass is NOT optimised for the 1.6X cameras but for the larger pixels on the FF cameras but its still better than the bulk of the EF-S lenses that are made more to a price. So optimising lenses to pixel pitch as the MP goes up is crutial.



This USED to be the case. Canon's new generation of lenses, starting with the EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II and EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II in 2011, the EF 500mm f/4 L IS II and EF 600mm f/4 L IS II, along with more recent lenses like the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II, most definitely up the ante. I've used several of these lenses, and they are MOST DEFINITELY optimized for high density sensors. There is no question they thoroughly outresolve my Canon 7D, which has a 4.3 micron pixel pitch. I would not be surprised if Canon's new generation of lenses is prepped for at least 60-70mp FF sensors down the road, if not much higher resolution sensors than that.

In a test done by Art Moriss comparing the EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS with the EF 600mm f/4 L IS II with both the 1.4x and 2x TC's, the new 600mm lens was without question sharper than the 800mm lens, both in the center of the lens as well as at the edge. The differences were obvious to the naked eye, and even with post-process sharpening the 800 couldn't keep up. 

Canon is preparing for a future of very high resolution sensors with a new round of exceptionally high powered lenses. L-series glass is most definitely optimized for high density 24-30mp APS-C (1.6x crop), and I think they could potentially be ready, on the high end, for sensors with pixels as small as 2.5 microns (135mp FF, 52mp APS-C), maybe as small as 2 microns (215mp FF, 84mp APS-C).


----------



## jrista (Mar 5, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I've used several of these lenses, and they are MOST DEFINITELY optimized for high density sensors. There is no question they thoroughly outresolve my Canon 7D, which has a 4.3 micron pixel pitch. I would not be surprised if Canon's new generation of lenses is prepped for at least 60-70mp FF sensors down the road, if not much higher resolution sensors than that.
> ...



First, realize that Canon has already done this. It isn't an idea, it's a simple fact. Rent the EF 600mm f/4 L IS II lens, and you'll see what I am talking about. Anyone who thinks a Canon 7D is soft, pop on a 24-70/2.8 II, 300, 400, 500, or 600mm L IS II, and the sheer resolving power of the 7D will finally reveal itself...without any softness anywhere to be seen.

As for the business value behind Canon's new lenses, I figure fundamentally it is the same as what was behind the original versions of the same lenses they replace. Canon's previous 300, 400, 500, and 600mm lenses all lasted for well over a decade, with an interim update to add 2-stop IS. Those puppies upon introduction cost roughly the same as the new generation does, which ranges from ~$8000 on the short end to ~$13,000 on the long end. I don't see any significant nominal price difference, and factoring in inflation, the current generation of lenses is actually cheaper than their predecessors. They are the most-used professional grade lenses in the world, ubiquitously seen at sports events, the Olympics, used by wildlife photographers and bird photographers, pretty much anything that needs the best quality and the greatest reach, at least two out of three times (if not much more than that) you'll see someone choosing a Canon supertelephoto lens. While Canon may no longer be the creme of the crop when it comes to sensors, I don't think you will find many photographers who even had the thought to question the quality of Canon's glass. It is second to none, and with recent advancements, I'd wager that Canon glass is just as food as Zeiss most of the time, if not better in a few cases (such as the 300mm and 600mm Mark II superteles.)

From a technological standpoint, the resolving power of the last generation of Canon lenses WAS beginning to show it's inferiority in light of increasingly dense digital image sensors that are finding their way into cameras. While techy geeks like you and I may understand the value of the sensor outresolving the lens, the majority of photographers expect impeccably sharp images strait out of camera. There is no questing that Canon's new line of lenses outperforms, in many cases by a very significant margin, the lenses they replace. The only logical conclusion I can really come to is that Canon is preparing for a future where the average sensor resolution is higher than today by enough of a margin that it warrants replacing all of the significant lenses in their L-series lens lineup.

As for when we might see sensors that need this level of resolution...not long. The 7D clearly needed better lenses than a significant majority of Canon's lens lineup prior to the release of the Mark II generation (pretty much every lens I've used on it resulted in some softness to some degree, with the exception of the 300mm f/2.8 L IS first generation and the 100mm L macro lens, and probably the 24 TS-E, 400, 500, and 600mm lenses from the same generation.) If the 7D Mark II really does land at 24.1mp, that is equivalent to a 62mp FF sensor...so we might only have to wait a few months before we see the kind of sensor that can thoroughly utilize lenses with much higher resolving power. If we get 24.1mp 1.6x APS-C sensors this year, within 3-4 years I think we could see 32mp APS-C sensors...or the equivalent of 82mp FF sensors. Within a decade? Hell, if we keep increasing sensor resolution by 20-30% per generation, we could see 50mp APS-C sensors and 140mp APS-C sensors within the decade. I don't know how likely a linear progression of sensor density is...but we already have sensors with pixel pitches approaching the 1 micron scale that produce great IQ...so I don't think it is technologically improbable by any means.

Finally, regarding a mount change...I don't foresee that happening any time soon. EF was a calculated move that Canon made, knowing the risks, in order to open up new possibilities that were not possible or too costly to apply to the FD mount. Given the fact that Canon has expanded EF mount compatibility to the EOS-M line, which should have a long and healthy life decades into the future, and given that Canon has demonstrated an ability to enhance their AF and IS capabilities by improving the firmware of lens and camera without changing the mount, I think EF is here to stay long into the future. I have no worries about a mount change.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 6, 2013)

Jrista, the inflation argument doesn't quite hold up, when you factor in the falling price of the Japanese Yen relating to the dollar. Japan's currency has been devalued over the last decade, moreso than the dollar (not an easy thing to do). Also realize there has been very little inflation in the USA since 2008. 

That said, probably no one can seriously doubt the resolution of their new supertelephoto lenses.

Sycotek, I can't believe Nikon still haven't officially admitted the green tint is an issue, it's been over a year! As for you not missing the ergonomics of Canon...all I can say is, I would.


----------



## jrista (Mar 6, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Jrista, the inflation argument doesn't quite hold up, when you factor in the falling price of the Japanese Yen relating to the dollar. Japan's currency has been devalued over the last decade, moreso than the dollar (not an easy thing to do). Also realize there has been very little inflation in the USA since 2008.
> 
> That said, probably no one can seriously doubt the resolution of their new supertelephoto lenses.
> 
> Sycotek, I can't believe Nikon still haven't officially admitted the green tint is an issue, it's been over a year! As for you not missing the ergonomics of Canon...all I can say is, I would.



Well, the inflation rates for each year since 2008 have been: 0.1%, 2.7%, 1.5%, 3.0%, 1.7% and 1.6%. IN 2008, we did indeed have very little inflation, however since 2008 the rate has been between half of average to average for the years before 2008. According to this official inflation calculator, a $12,999 item from 2008 would cost $13,903 today. As I said, the current prices, in US dollars for US consumers, is at the very least the same, if not less, than they were in 2008. That said, the original 600mm lens with the original non-IS design appeared in 1988 (it's actually a bit older than I thought, it had over a 10-year life before the IS update), and was refreshed to the previous design with 2-stop IS in 1999. At it's introduction, the last 600mm f/4 L IS USM lens cost...you guessed it, $12,999. At the time, that was 1,290,000 yen. In late 2008, it was worth about 1,650,000 yen, and today it is still worth around 1,300,000 yen (BTW, inflation rate in the yen has been slightly negative more than positive since 1998, and was recently -0.3% as of January, thanks to the Bank of Japan intentionally keeping the rate low so as to support carry trades (http://www.wikinvest.com/currency/Japanese_Yen_(JPY))...so I am assuming 1.3 million yen in 1999 is still roughly equivalent to 1.3 million yen today.) Accounting for inflation since 1999, the IS refresh of the 600mm lens would have cost $17,968 in today-dollars. 

The current version of the lens costs about the same in Japanese yen today as it did in 1999...and is $5000 cheaper in inflation-adjusted USD today...so I stand by my statements. The cost is pretty much just what it costs for a hand-made lens that good.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 6, 2013)

I'm not sure I agree with all of your numbers and your logic. I was referring to the "decade" time-frame. My cousin bought his 600 f/4 new back around 2005 (8 years ago), and paid around $7500 for it. And, if you applied your logic to other consumer goods such as japanese automobiles, then an entry-level japanese sedan selling ten years ago (2003) for $23,000, it would sell today for ~$29,000. Meaning there would be no entry level japanese sedans selling for under $29,000 msrp. Yet the $23,000 category is still alive and well, and the car itself is generally better equipped, better performing, safer, and is more fuel efficient. 

The American economy has stagnated since 2008, and if it's had any real inflation beyond a yearly average of 1%, while GDP growth has barely stayed ahead of that (negative for a year or more of that time), on average...combined with a 70% increase of the national debt since that time...then we're in real trouble. But of course, we are. Do you realize the debt is growing at $40,000 per second?


----------



## Saurus (Mar 6, 2013)

I had the 100L 2.8 and loved it - sharpest lens I had owned up to then.

But, I found that for street photography, the fixed focal length was deal-breaker. I'd far rather go for a zoom. I know you'd compromise on certain things, such as having to carry around a big white lens if you try the 70-200L II or a slower max aperture if you go for the 24-105L, but I found a zoom essential for street pics.


----------



## jrista (Mar 6, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> I'm not sure I agree with all of your numbers and your logic. I was referring to the "decade" time-frame. My cousin bought his 600 f/4 new back around 2005 (8 years ago), and paid around $7500 for it. And, if you applied your logic to other consumer goods such as japanese automobiles, then an entry-level japanese sedan selling ten years ago (2003) for $23,000, it would sell today for ~$29,000. Meaning there would be no entry level japanese sedans selling for under $29,000 msrp. Yet the $23,000 category is still alive and well, and the car itself is generally better equipped, better performing, safer, and is more fuel efficient.
> 
> The American economy has stagnated since 2008, and if it's had any real inflation beyond a yearly average of 1%, while GDP growth has barely stayed ahead of that (negative for a year or more of that time), on average...combined with a 70% increase of the national debt since that time...then we're in real trouble. But of course, we are. Do you realize the debt is growing at $40,000 per second?



Oh, I think the US is *******.  We are so deep in debt there isn't any digging out of it. The $85 billion "saved" by our sequester barely covers the cost of a single week (we spend over 10 billion a day). The new tax hikes from the 2012 Fiscal Cliff only bring in $200 billion a year, which is a mere $16 billion a month (while we spend over $75 billion a week), while we also spend $1.6 trillion in borrowed money, so we are still at a net deficit of $1.4 trillion a year (however Obama's budget plan projects expenditures of $5.88 trillion by 2022, so there is effectively zero benefit from the tax hikes...period...and that doesn't account for additional Obamacare expenditures over and above existing medicare/caid expenditures, unfunded Soc. Sec. liabilities, etc.) The US is as ******* as the rest of the world. When the debt bubble finally bursts, as at some point the can being proverbially kicked down the road by the aggregate of the worlds governments will most certainly go flying off the debt cliff, the US will be at the forefront of the black-hole level mass of negative dollars sucking the entire world into the singularity of total destitution (which will most likely be followed by war, killing, mass death, and the effective razing of the earth in the nuclear fire that ensues as watever remainig powers lob their biggest bombs at each other to take control of the pitiful remnants of what was once humanity... ???) Yup..we're all ********!! Muhahahahaahaaaa! ;D*

BTW, I was using this CPI Inflation Calculator to determine the US dollar value of things on an inflation-adjusted scale. CPI is the official index from which inflation is calculated in the US, and the rate of inflation has ranged from 1.6% to 3% _since _ 2008...that is slightly below the average of about 3.5% for the prior years of the decade, but closer to the average of 2% or so since the CPI index was started (1984). A lot of people consider the CPI index to be a very weak measure of inflation (I am one of them), and that other indexes such as the Everyday Price Index are a much better measure of "Real Inflation". According to EPI, _real inflation _ since 2008 has been much closer to or above 8% when factoring in much higher energy prices and volatile & increasing base commodity prices (including food goods, base and rare earth metals which are used in all the little devices we use every day...including cameras, lenses, cell phones, tablets, etc.)

I think I was actually being very conservative with my assumptions regarding inflation. It is also very difficult to nail down inflation in other currencies, expecially when comparing apples and oranges products like cars vs. DSLR lenses directly. Too few products, too few product categories, far too few price samples of each product, etc. It is better to use official data or an official multi-currency inflation calculator. My assumptions related to the yen involve the following facts: The 1999 Yen/USD rate was 101, while the 2013 rate is pushing over 96, and is likely to reach 101 again; the price of the 600mm lens, in yen, at introduction was nearly the same as the price today; the official rate of inflation in the yen has averaged -0.15% or so since 1998, with the exception of a very large spike up to nearly 3% in the 2007-2008 financial crisis period, followed by a corresponding drop of roughly the same magnitude (~-3%) directly following (effectively canceling the spike), with the average since still in the 0 to -0.3% range. In other words...nearly zero yen inflation in a decade, approximately the same exchange rate in 1999 as today, and roughly the same price in yen then and now.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 6, 2013)

Saurus said:


> I had the 100L 2.8 and loved it - sharpest lens I had owned up to then.
> 
> But, I found that for street photography, the fixed focal length was deal-breaker. I'd far rather go for a zoom. I know you'd compromise on certain things, such as having to carry around a big white lens if you try the 70-200L II or a slower max aperture if you go for the 24-105L, but I found a zoom essential for street pics.



Yes, the 100L is a highly popular, highly sharp lens. I agree about street photography. If you only have a fixed lens, sooner or later, a truck is going to run over you as you are backing up to frame a shot! Zooms are essential...and not just for street photography. The trick is finding one you can live with, at a price you can live with.

*Jrista,* it seems to me, that since you're putting forth evidence that there has been no inflation in the yen in a decade or more, that this should keep prices from increasing so much, for Japanese products. Since the dollar recently has improved in relation to the yen, it's a shame the msrp of camera products from Japan, regardless of the manufacturer, have not followed suit.

I agree that energy and food prices have inflated at least 8% annually on average, if not more...and yes...we are *******. I don't want to get overly political, but we all know who has wasted more money on nothing, literally flushed it down the toilet. It is still happening now, and will continue. Since the democratic process has failed, the solution is simple, and its not legal. Subversion. The process, not so simple, and fraught with disaster.

As for camera bodies, especially the 5D3 and 6D, their prices seem more in line with inflation...if not even a slight discount. So no one is denying their value at their current prices...they are really a bargain.

*What we're really talking about here,* is a lens going from approximately $8,000, to $13,000. If you're saying the 62% increase in price, is justified alone because of the US Dollar's inflation over the last decade..._it is not_ (even 3% x 10 = 30%, not 62%). *However, what you're really saying,* is that the current asking price is justified, because the enhanced optical quality, resolution, weight, and other performance parameters...have increased so much that the current "generation 2" lens lineup, will not need to be replaced for at least 10 more years or so (and will be adequate resolution for 50 to 80 megapixel full frame sensors). _I can agree pretty easily with this second underlying point, but not with the first._


----------



## jrista (Mar 6, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> *What we're really talking about here,* is a lens going from approximately $8,000, to $13,000. If you're saying the 62% increase in price, is justified alone because of the US Dollar's inflation over the last decade..._it is not_ (even 3% x 10 = 30%, not 62%). *However, what you're really saying,* is that the current asking price is justified, because the enhanced optical quality, resolution, weight, and other performance parameters...have increased so much that the current "generation 2" lens lineup, will not need to be replaced for at least 10 more years or so (and will be adequate resolution for 50 to 80 megapixel full frame sensors). _I can agree pretty easily with this second underlying point, but not with the first._



The lens didn't go from $8000 to $13000. It's PREDECESSOR went from $13000 to $8000 to $6500 to, in some cases, as little as $4500 for a moderately used copy with extremely minor (and otherwise meaningless) nicks and scratches on the body. Older products get cheaper, both officially and unofficially. You have to realize Canon HAS spend a huge amount of money researching new lens designs, new materials for lens elements (they were the first to use Fluorite lens elements by growing the crystals to optical grade, and are now the first company to use multiple Fluorite elements in a lens for reduced weight and superior CA control), new materials and ergonomic design for the lens barrel, new designs for significantly faster AF and IS mechanics and circuitry with longer manual focus throw, etc. Not to mention the brainpower that had to go into greatly improving the center to edge MTF of a lens that was already STELLAR! All of that R&D isn't free...it costs hundreds of millions. 

The EF 600mm f/4 L IS II is not the EF 600mm f/4 L IS USM. They are different lenses, with the new Mark II being a complete redesign from the ground up. Of course it is going to cost more. Think of Canon's L-series telephoto lens line as akin to medium format digital. They are specialty products. It doesn't really matter if, generation after generation of product improvements, the price stays the same. It is a niche product, designed with the intention of being used by professionals, corporations, and extreme enthusiasts who demand the best of the best and are willing to pay for hand-crafted, top of the line superiority. MFD has remained in the $20k to $80k price range for decades. I don't foresee anything that will ever change that fact, either...its just that kind of product. It's a product of high end, top notch, hand crafted quality.

People often compare DSLR camera gear to personal computers. It isn't the same thing. Personal computing is a consumer-grade thing, is ubiquitous and intended to be cheap. That would only be similar to the P&S, Bridge, and Mirrorless camera segment...the stuff designed for mass consumption by consumers. However when you get into the enthusiast and enterprise markets of computing, prices skyrocket. It is still pretty standard practice to spend tens of thousands of dollars on powerful servers that service corporate needs, or many thousands to as much as ten to twenty thousand on a high powered enthusiast gaming PC. I remember spending $7500 on one of my ultra-overclocked, water- and peltier-cooled, gaming PC monster a DECADE ago. People are still building systems that expensive. Some people spend even more for the top of the line, fastest CPU's, the fastest memory, the fastest SSD drives (some of which pump out a gigabyte of data per second), 12-drive RAID systems, custom case enclosures and advanced custom watercooling systems, etc. 

The high end is always expensive...always has been expensive...always will be expensive. In all honesty, given the radical rise in price for base metals, precious metals, even rare earth metals, (all of which are essential for the manufacture of image sensors and lenses and the like) combined with the volatility in commodity markets, leaves me rather amazed that the prices of these top-end lenses has not gone up considerably. I wouldn't have been surprised if, given the inflation in commodity markets, these new lenses (300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 600mm) hit the street at $12000-18000.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 8, 2013)

jrista said:


> The lens didn't go from $8000 to $13000. It's PREDECESSOR went from $13000 to $8000 to $6500 to, in some cases, as little as $4500 for a moderately used copy with extremely minor (and otherwise meaningless) nicks and scratches on the body. Older products get cheaper, both officially and unofficially. You have to realize Canon HAS spend a huge amount of money researching new lens designs, new materials for lens elements (they were the first to use Fluorite lens elements by growing the crystals to optical grade, and are now the first company to use multiple Fluorite elements in a lens for reduced weight and superior CA control), new materials and ergonomic design for the lens barrel, new designs for significantly faster AF and IS mechanics and circuitry with longer manual focus throw, etc. Not to mention the brainpower that had to go into greatly improving the center to edge MTF of a lens that was already STELLAR! All of that R&D isn't free...it costs hundreds of millions.
> 
> The EF 600mm f/4 L IS II is not the EF 600mm f/4 L IS USM. They are different lenses, with the new Mark II being a complete redesign from the ground up. Of course it is going to cost more. Think of Canon's L-series telephoto lens line as akin to medium format digital. They are specialty products. It doesn't really matter if, generation after generation of product improvements, the price stays the same. It is a niche product, designed with the intention of being used by professionals, corporations, and extreme enthusiasts who demand the best of the best and are willing to pay for hand-crafted, top of the line superiority. MFD has remained in the $20k to $80k price range for decades. I don't foresee anything that will ever change that fact, either...its just that kind of product. It's a product of high end, top notch, hand crafted quality.
> 
> ...


+1 ... well said


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 9, 2013)

Jrista, I never said the version 2 is the same lens with some updates. I also didn't make the comparison of specialty DSLR equipment, to computers. You implied I did, but I did not. I compared automobiles...and more R&D is spent on them than on specialty camera gear...by orders of magnitude in some cases.

By your logic, the next leap forward in price, given inflation and the supposed added costs of R&D, for a version 3 lens a decade from now, would be...what? $45,000? Or rather, in terms of what the dollar will actually be worth at that time...$1 trillion?

What rare earth metals are used in the manufacture of these lenses? Is a lot of platinum or palladium used? Cerium, perhaps for polishing? I assume lanthanum is used, perhaps for coatings...has the price of these skyrocketed recently? I wonder how much of the actual cost to manufacture a lens, goes for rare earth elements? I doubt it's all that high of a percentage. Aside from R&D, the cost usually goes to energy, tooling and labor...especially since these aren't made by industrial slaves in China.

I am not arguing that the new lenses aren't worth the current asking price. However, if that price ever comes down, what does that mean? Does that mean they were really worth whatever the market could bear, and after the newness wears off, the market can't bear so much? How much money, is enough for you? Will you ever have enough? I don't think I'll ever have enough disposable income to collect a full set of supertelephoto lenses like many seem to do, but you never know. I'm happy for you that you can. Not all of us can.


----------



## jrista (Mar 9, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Jrista, I never said the version 2 is the same lens with some updates.



Well, I quote (underline emphasis added to clarify):



CarlTN said:


> *What we're really talking about here,* is_* a lens going from *_approximately $8,000, to $13,000.



I don't know any other way to read that than to mean you consider the 600/4 IS II to effectively be the same lens as the 600/4 IS, and thus account for a "a lens going from approximately $8000 to $13000". The 600/4 IS II has only ever had a single price in USD...$12,999. It was never introduced at $8000. The 600/4 IS was also introduced at $12,999, and after a period of some _years_ did it drop to around $8000, and $4500-6500 on the used market.



CarlTN said:


> By your logic, the next leap forward in price, given inflation and the supposed added costs of R&D, for a version 3 lens a decade from now, would be...what? $45,000? Or rather, in terms of what the dollar will actually be worth at that time...$1 trillion?



The price will be whatever the market can bear 10-15 years from now, factoring inflation and a countless number of other factors. Canon obviously does not believe the market can bear an increased price for the 600 II, and given that the conversion rate between dollars and yen is very similar to what it was a decade ago right now, it seems to think $12,9999 is the market bearing price. Assuming the only thing that changes over the next 10-15 years is USD inflation, the exchange rate with the yen changes accordingly, then the price could be around $16,500-$18,000. If key commodities increase in price, such as magnesium, titanium (base metals) increase in price considerably (which is not an unlikely scenario, given how much more we use these high end materials in more and more products consumed by greater and greater populations), then I don't think it would be all that surprising for the price of the lens to reach as high as $20,000 in another decade. 

There are so many other factors that could affect price as well. Worker wages (these lenses are hand made once the key parts like lens elements and barrel parts are manufactured...all assembly is entirely done by hand) could play a key role in the price in the future. Import/Export taxes, regulations by any major country that these lenses are sold in, etc. etc. could all have an impact on the price in the future. The world is a regulatory beast these days...consumers and corporations bear a very burdensome cost of high regulation in most major countries, and that has a measurable impact on the cost of products like this. If the world ever finds it's financial footing again (an outcome I highly doubt, fools run everything these days), we could experience a deflationary period that would normalize the world to a previous state of fiat currency value, inflation, regulation, etc. which would allow future prices to be the same as or cheaper than they are today. If the opposite occurs, prices could be far higher. If hyperinflation occurs in a few countries, which isn't implausible or even all that unlikely given the financial state of so many countries, prices could skyrocket, and who knows what things might cost...$100,000, a million, several million...for a lens like the hypothetical 600 III?



CarlTN said:


> What rare earth metals are used in the manufacture of these lenses? Is a lot of platinum or palladium used? Cerium, perhaps for polishing? I assume lanthanum is used, perhaps for coatings...has the price of these skyrocketed recently? I wonder how much of the actual cost to manufacture a lens, goes for rare earth elements? I doubt it's all that high of a percentage. Aside from R&D, the cost usually goes to energy, tooling and labor...especially since these aren't made by industrial slaves in China.



Rare earth and precious metals are used a lot more these days in high tech electronics, circuitry, etc. I don't think platinum or palladium are used, the primary industrial use for those metals is automobiles. Gold is usually used for extra-die wiring and interconnects, bus wiring, non-corrosive interface connections, etc. DSLR's are PACKED with electronics, and while the total volume of commodity metals (even including base metals like copper, usually used for on-die interconnect wiring in sensors and DSPs and other high performance ICs) is very small...a gram at most probably...the cost of precious metals like Gold and a wide variety of rare earth metals have increased by a factor of ten or more over the last decade. China was the primary producer of REMs until they decided to stop exporting them, keeping the vast majority of their production for use within their own borders.

There are some other REM miners outside of China, but not many. The primary use for such metals is in the manufacture of CFL and LED bulbs, and with the recent laws that have fully taken effect in the US to move from Tungsten to more energy efficient bulbs, the consumption of rare earth metals has skyrocketed while the supply and suppliers has plummeted. Molly Corp, a US corporation based in California, is the largest miner of REMs outside of China to replace the supply, but they have had a number of struggles. If struggles to mine REMs continue, the price of those commodities could continue to rise...and for some of them, the price is 20, 50, even as much as 80 times more than they were a decade ago. 



CarlTN said:


> I am not arguing that the new lenses aren't worth the current asking price. However, if that price ever comes down, what does that mean? Does that mean they were really worth whatever the market could bear, and after the newness wears off, the market can't bear so much? How much money, is enough for you? Will you ever have enough? I don't think I'll ever have enough disposable income to collect a full set of supertelephoto lenses like many seem to do, but you never know. I'm happy for you that you can. Not all of us can.



First, the price will remain high so long as the demand is there. From what I understand, when you order one of these lenses, it can be months before you actually get it, because they are in such huge demand that they cannot be manufactured fast enough, and all assembly and testing of each lens is done by hand. There is a pretty long waiting list for all of the new Mark II lenses (although a bit less so for the 300 and 400, as they hit the street a year earlier.) When all of the key consumers and professionals have their copy, demand will drop, probably rather precipitously, and the rebates will start to fly at that point.

The primary trigger for a significant drop in official price is when the R&D costs have been recouped for a given lens design. The 600 II costs $12,999 right now because it is in demand and Canon needs to recoup the costs involved in making it a significantly better lens than it's predecessor. When the current circumstances end, the price should drop. I wouldn't be surprised to see it hit $8,999 within three years. So long as Canon can make a reasonable profit and keep customers interested, the price will be as high as it can be. There is a certain amount of customer expectation in price, but ultimately they end up being what the market will bear. Everyone expected the price of the 5D III to be $2700. So many were surprised when it hit the street at $3500...but it is still selling like hotcakes, and sells even better when there are dips into the $3000 range. The market was certainly able to bear the $3500 price tag. It is still able to bear the $3000 price tag. Canon needs to recoup their R&D costs for their new line of DSLRs. Once they have, the official price of the 5D III will drop, maybe $2999. It's just how things work.


----------



## Hydrogen (Mar 24, 2013)

jrista -

I would love to see a 100% crop of the pine branch the red morph is perched upon. From here it is hard to tell, but the branch appears to be sharper than the bird. Possible missed/front-focus?



jrista said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding the use of teleconverters on APS-C. I use them. Hell, I've used teleconverters with both the EF 300mm f/2.8 L II and the EF 500mm f/4 L II on my 7D. I use both the 1.4x and 2x, and if Canon made a 1.7x, I'd use that too. Primes frequently have far more to offer from an IQ standpoint than sensors do. A lot of people complain about how "soft" the 7D is...that is true, sometimes...when using older lenses. Slap on pretty much ANY Mark II lens on a 7D, and that "soft" disappears, replaced by some of the sharpest detail you've ever seen. The Canon 18.1mp APS-C sensor is a good sensor...however it is a very, very high density sensor. If you use inferior glass with it, *all the flaws OF THE GLASS are revealed*. The only real drawback of the 7D is noise, and then, only at ISO settings above 2500 (and even then, with the increasing availability of advanced noise removal tools, such as Topaz DeNoise 5 (which has stellar random noise removal AND debanding!), high ISO noise is becoming less and less of a problem.)
> ...



I think the visual evidence speaks to itself regarding the sharpness and quality of, say, the EF 300mm f/2.8 L II lens (or any Mark II telephoto lens from Canon.) Canon is not releasing new lenses for the bulk of their lens lineup just for the heck of it. They are releasing new lenses to support their DSLR business for the next decade or two! The addition of IS or throwing in a Fluorite element here and there in the past were only minor updates on decades-old lens designs, and the impact to MTF charts was always minor. This is the first time since Canon introduced the EF mount that they are radically redesigning their L-series lenses to not only be lighter and more ergonomically ideal, but to significantly improve the MTF (resolving power/IQ) of each, as well as improve the AF circuitry to support much more advanced AF units that have found their way into the 1D X and 5D III (and, hopefully, the 7D II). In the past, even some of Canon's best lenses were still only in the range of 0.7 to 0.8 at best, and a bare few ever approached the vaunted 1.0 (the original EF 300mm f/2.8 L comes to mind as the prime example). The lenses released over the last few years, as well as those yet to be released or updated, all produce or will most likely produce MTFs well above 0.9 at best, and the Mark II telephoto lenses all approach 1.0 from center to nearly the edge.

I have no doubt in my mind that Canon is paving the way for 24mp+ APS-C sensors and 60-70mp FF sensors down the road. An extensive lens-lineup upgrade like they are doing is not just on a whim...they NEED the improvements to support the future DSLR, and a 24mp 7D II is probably only the beginning. Personally, I'm very much looking forward to a 24mp APS-C pro-grade camera from Canon. If they manage to achieve similar ISO gains as the 1D X has, it will be an astonishing camera indeed. At 10fps w/ a 61pt AF system on the 7D II, Nikon...who as of yet has not shown much interest in updating the bulk of their lens lineup to support _their_ 24mp APS-C sensors or 36mp FF sensors, won't have anything that will solidly compete with it!
[/quote]


----------



## Hydrogen (Mar 24, 2013)

Hydrogen said:


> jrista -
> 
> I would love to see a 100% crop of the pine branch the red morph is perched upon. From here it is hard to tell, but the branch appears to be sharper than the bird. Possible missed/front-focus?



Appears to be the tip of the pine branch is sharper...


----------



## jrista (Mar 28, 2013)

Hydrogen said:


> Hydrogen said:
> 
> 
> > jrista -
> ...



It was most likely wind, although the birds breast feathers are only a few millimeters more distant than the closest pine needles. I have plenty of other shots that demonstrate the difference. Even if I dig out my sharpest 100-400mm shot, it still won't be as sharp as the shot from the 500mm L II. Just looking at the MTFs will tell you that, of course...the 500's is nearly perfect, while the 100-400's is most definitely not.

I can try digging out some other examples if you want.


----------



## garyknrd (Mar 28, 2013)

I agree, I have the 300 II and 500 II and only just switched to the Mark IV for AF. I Have been telling the guys on another forum that these lenses were designed for high MP sensors. It is simply amazing. If i had the AF of the IDX in a 7D I would never of changed to the mark IV. It is simply stunning with the 7D. I have never seen anything like it. I am waiting on the next 7d II. It will revolutionize birding with the new lenses. Period. 
The people who have never shot the new Super telephoto's with the 7D just do not realize how good the glass is.
The 1DX and 5DIII are not the best these lenses can do by a long way. The 7D has shown me these lenses are ready for big high MP sensors.


----------



## StepBack (May 30, 2013)

Sharpness comparisons r interesting up to a point. Looking at a National Geo book of "Simply Beautiful Pictures" are hundreds of fantastic shots and not one of them is nearly as encumbered as the shots of the back yard birds with the notion that pixels are more important than the context as described by the author which includes light, moment, subject etc. In fact the first few pages are literally filled with what beginners and neophytes and those captivated by the cost of a lens believe are completely dull shots because there is no sharpness involved. None of the pictures of sharp shots can be found at the Smithsonian. Now they may appear after much digital editing in a magazine for emphasis. But to buy a lens based on its apparent sharpness is to lose the efforts of photography and make no use of ones skills and talents. If it were than merely spending money would encapsulate the total equation of "superior" shots. It ain't that at all.


----------

