# *UPDATE* EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C Will Change



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 2, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/02/eos-70d-is-coming-the-future-of-pro-aps-c-is-unknown/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/02/eos-70d-is-coming-the-future-of-pro-aps-c-is-unknown/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>EOS 70D


</strong>Canon’s Masaya Maeda let it be know that a Canon EOS 70D would be coming “some day in the future. Without fail.” I’d expect one to be announced in the next 45-90 days depending on which report we go with.</p>
<p>What to expect feature wise? I’ve been told two contrasting theories about the upcoming camera.</p>
<p>One, that it will be a relatively lateral upgrade to the EOS 60D, a few subtle improvements and priced around $1000.</p>
<p>The other reports that have leaked in, is the xxD line would return to where the 50D was in terms of build quality and size. We’d be going back to a more semi-professional style camera. If this happens, that would definitely change the EOS 7D’s place in the lineup.</p>
<p><strong>EOS 7D Mark II

</strong>There has been little talk about the next “pro” APS-C camera lately. I’m of the belief, if and when one comes, it will be a new segment for APS-C performance and features, and probably at a higher price point.  If the 70D returns to its roots, is there room for a high performance $2000+ APS-C camera? That question could probably be debated for a while.</p>
<p>I don’t see a return of APS-H, it needlessly raises the cost to manufacture the camera due to the larger sensor, and we’d still have the inability to get a true wide angle perspective with lenses.</p>
<p>If a pro APS-C camera comes, I can see it borrowing heavily from the EOS-1D X as far as framerate and AF performance go. Build quality would also be quite stellar.</p>
<p>Both Nikon and Canon must be hard at work trying to redefine the segment. The D300 came out in 2007, with a minor “s” upgrade in 2009. The EOS 7D came to us with a lot of fanfare in late 2009. We could be approaching 6 years and 4 years respectively before we get to see what both companies have up their sleeves.</p>
<p>The future is probably full frame across most of the EOS line, but we’re not at that point yet.</p>
<p><strong>*UPDATE*

</strong>During my current travels, I missed an interview Masaya Maeda gave in Japan about the 7D’s successor. Below is a <a href="http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/20130124_584693.html" target="_blank">translated part of the interview</a> that talks about the EOS 7D Mark II. It does reaffirm our thoughts that the 7D Mark II will enter new territory.</p>
<p><strong>DKW:</strong> As for the readers of DigiKame Watch, there are many who are waiting for the EOS 7D’s sucessor. Up through the release of last year’s major firmware update, there were many who felt that a new model with even better specs would be released shortly…</p>
<p><strong>MM:</strong> Yes, they would be correct. For us, it’s about looking at what the camera has the potential to be and then adding that to what it can currently do. I do think the current model is still very attractive to buyers. And while we are, of course, developing its successor, it’ll be one that incorporates a certain number of innovative technologies. We will not be putting out a product with merely better specs, but one that has evolved into new territory. But then again, we’re not talking about something a long time from now either.</p>
<p><em>Thanks Dave C for this update</em></p>
<p><strong>Source: [<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0336328811/cp-2013-interview-with-canons-masaya-maeda" target="_blank">DPR</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Feb 2, 2013)

*Re: EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C is Unknown*

I chose my beloved 50D over the very capable t2i because of the bigger, metal body. It feels better in my hands and since its a tool vs a toy, would have more durability over a Rebel. I was seriously disappointed when the excellent 60D came with a plastic body.

I think a blazingly fast crop camera could be a good thing. A really great sports and wildlife camera for beginners...


----------



## bseitz234 (Feb 2, 2013)

Am I the only one getting sick of "updates" that don't tell us anything? We know this. The 70D will be an evolution, more or less, but it will not be revolutionary. Canon wants us to believe the 7d2 will be revolutionary. My money's on the smaller-process sensor (what now, 280nm? Which I don't quite get because intel has 22nm down pat, I imagine silicon fab is silicon fab, regardless of what you're making with it? Anyway....) but I'm in the optimistic camp. It doesn't matter what we say or speculate, the camera will not be public until canon wants it to be. So please, can we just wait till there's actually a concrete update for these repetitions of old rumors?


----------



## bseitz234 (Feb 2, 2013)

Anyone know inflation numbers? I know it's been slow, but 2k USD may well be pretty close to 1699 in 2009, by the time this camera is a reality... I just don't find 2k shockingly expensive. Then again. I'm a Mac user, so I'm used to it. ;-)


----------



## hmmm (Feb 2, 2013)

So.. the 70D will likely be a 60D with a more rugged body, maybe afma, but the same basic sensor. Maybe more than 3-shot AEB? It will have touchscreen, GPS and wifi.

The 7D mkII will finally premiere the new sensor -- but will cost $2500 at intro.

The t5i will be a t4i with GPS and maybe wifi. Hopefully the STM af will get a boost.

Well, those are the three APS-c dslrs this year, most likely. For me, that 7D mkII might get interesting once the price settles down. Maybe in time for after-Thanksgiving sales?


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 2, 2013)

It's obvious a 7D2 would be priced above the 6D, and a 70D below. Agreed on the need to get back to the 50D's body and functionality (i.e., AF micro adjust, etc.). (I refuse to say "+1" because it looks so nerdy). I think it's likely there are at least two versions of a new crop sensor, and Canon are trying to decide which to go with. I will state again, that I feel it needs to be 1.47x crop, or whatever will "barely" still work with crop lenses. Birders and a few in the (outdoor) sports segment, are the target market for a highend crop sensor camera. Yet, most of those are the very ones who really prefer a sensor larger than the crop format. It's a catch 22. The solution, abandon 1.6x as Canon's "only" crop format, and tweak its size a bit. You get to have a decent MP count, while the photosites themselves are larger than say, Sony-Nikon's (every bit of photons help, with DR and SNR). That, however, still doesn't get a 1Dx-derived AF sensor, into a tiny box.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 2, 2013)

With the current price of the 7D and the large number of used and refurbs available in the $1000 - $1200 range, I'd wonder who would buy a 70D that was not the equal of a 7D?? That doesn't seem like a good plan to me. It needs to be something that would bring some features that give it more value than a used 7D.


----------



## dave (Feb 2, 2013)

*Re: EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C is Unknown*



ahsanford said:


> Getting back to the original story of this thread... By the time the 7D2 comes out, I think it will cost more than the 6D. This wound some people up when I last offered this, but I think a stellar APS-C body that prevents you from needing to buy the longest glass (because of crop) is worth its weight in gold to some folks. A $2K APS-C body, as such, is entirely possible.



I tend to support your view.

It would be astonishing if it was less than the 6D. We see with the difference between the 5D3 and the 1DX a large price increase for features which don't have a massive impact on the optimal IQ achievable (more the ability to maintain good IQ under worse/difficult conditions). 

I'm getting a $2499 feeling.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 2, 2013)

Mt Spokane, I could ask the same thing to anyone who bought the 6D over a 5D2. It has almost the same AF sensor, similar fps...not that much improved ISO...the only thing it really has is wifi and geotagging. You pay $300 more for those frills. So there's your answer. Whoever would buy the 70D for a similar price to a "7D refurb", is whoever wants a "new" camera, not necessarily a "better" camera. I mean, let's get real here...all the photo and camera geeks care about is the ISO noise floor anyway...and that will never improve much over the 7D...unless Canon adopts (or improves on) some of Sony's sensor design concepts. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I doubt they will this year. And if Canon somehow improve on the 7D's AF system, they will want big money for that. Photo geeks certainly don't care as much about the ultimate video quality, because on that score, even the 5D3 is lacking...compared to the bottom end cinema cameras costing ~twice the price and above. Yet, because of the thousands of wedding videographers and independent film makers who are happy to use them, the 5D3 is held up as some kind of bastion of video quality. Supposedly the video quality is much lower than that, with the 6D...which is not surprising, and obviously intentional. Either way, the new product always gets the attention, and will sell well, initially. I'm not worried about Canon's market share shrinking, though.


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 2, 2013)

Hope to see a solid 7D update. I love mine and it serves me well. I use a 200 f/2 and 400 f/2.8 with mine and have more then enough reach for any distance work. 5d3 sits on my hip when the subject gets close with a 8-15 Fish or 16-35 UWA. 

8FPS is fine.. 10 would be great.. 12 would be amazing. Better AF would be nice (and I almost expect it) but the current AF in the 7D rocks. I would LOVE to see the menus updated to the 5d3/1dx style for changing AF settings. 18Mp is good I could live with a few more.. but a non issue TBH. I can only assume it will have dual Digic 5 or 5+. Possibly take advantage of higher voltage and allow the use of 1Dx batteries in the grip for faster AF. 

Those are my wishes.


----------



## lopicma (Feb 2, 2013)

Interesting on where the 7D mk.II will fall consumer (prosumer) wise. I don't own either camera, but all the talk seems to point out that the current 7D has a better focusing system than the new 6D.

I am still unclear as to what the "lesser" cameras markets are. I get the 1D series as professional, but to me, I feel the 5D falls into the professional category as well. Is this wrong? I never thought of the 7D as a pro camera until recently, but the xxD series and the Rebel series (xxxD) seem to blend into one convoluted pile.

Has Canon positioned the 60D and the 7D similar to the 1D-S and the 1D Mkxx? Canon seems to be "leap frogging" an not working in parallel, when they issue cameras.


Confused.. but what else is new...,


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 2, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> (I refuse to say "+1" because it looks so nerdy).



??? doesn't the whole "+1" thing come from the sports world and ESPN??



> I think it's likely there are at least two versions of a new crop sensor, and Canon are trying to decide which to go with. I will state again, that I feel it needs to be 1.47x crop, or whatever will "barely" still work with crop lenses. Birders and a few in the (outdoor) sports segment, are the target market for a highend crop sensor camera. Yet, most of those are the very ones who really prefer a sensor larger than the crop format. It's a catch 22. The solution, abandon 1.6x as Canon's "only" crop format, and tweak its size a bit. You get to have a decent MP count, while the photosites themselves are larger than say, Sony-Nikon's (every bit of photons help, with DR and SNR). That, however, still doesn't get a 1Dx-derived AF sensor, into a tiny box.



Hmm I doubt that. Probably it will be APS-C. If by any chance it is not then 1.3x. Maybe 7D3 is 1.3x or maybe by then they are driving 7-8fps at FF and high density sensors.


----------



## dlleno (Feb 2, 2013)

I doubt the image circle on c lenses will support 1.47x sensor...


----------



## x-vision (Feb 2, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> With the current price of the 7D and the large number of used and refurbs available in the $1000 - $1200 range, I'd wonder who would buy a 70D that was not the equal of a 7D??



Agree. 

That's why I actually think that the 70D will get Rebel-ized even further.
It will have an even smaller body than the 60D, maybe no top LCD, etc..
All this so that Canon can lower the price to $950 at introduction. 

And the 7DII will be announced at $1600-1800 in the fall.
Definitely not a 1DIV replacement, as many here seem to want.

Let's see who'll guess it right 8).


----------



## ddashti (Feb 2, 2013)

Ah, what Maeda said can be interpreted in so many different ways...
It's like identifying unknown variables with unknown quantities.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 2, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> (I refuse to say "+1" because it looks so nerdy)



-1


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 2, 2013)

lopicma said:


> I am still unclear as to what the "lesser" cameras markets are. I get the 1D series as professional, but to me, I feel the 5D falls into the professional category as well. Is this wrong? I never thought of the 7D as a pro camera until recently, but the xxD series and the Rebel series (xxxD) seem to blend into one convoluted pile.
> 
> Has Canon positioned the 60D and the 7D similar to the 1D-S and the 1D Mkxx? Canon seems to be "leap frogging" an not working in parallel, when they issue cameras.
> 
> ...



I posted this recently elsewhere, but here's my vote on what each trimline is for:

XXXXD: Cost cost cost. "I cannot buy a film camera any longer", "my high school student son wants to pick up photography", etc.

XXXD: A few key consumer level niceties: touch screen, swivel screen, so-so AF for video. "I just want it to take nice pictures, and occasionally a video", "Do I need a longer lens? Maybe...", etc.

XXD: A thicker grip (I hear this often), top LCD for quick adjustments, less reliance on auto modes. "I've been shooting a while now", "I felt limited by my older camera", etc.

7D: Serious shooters and some pros who see APS-C as a strength and not a liability. Better build. Fast burst. "This is the best tool for birding", "I need high burst rate to cover sports for the local paper", "I really like tweaking my lens AF", etc.

6D: Serious shooters who do see APS-C as a liability but don't want to pay for all the bells and whistles. "I have always wanted a FF camera", "It's not the highest end, but you should _see_ the pictures I get with this."

5D3: Pros, videographers, well-funded enthusiasts, etc. who will pay for IQ and build quality but do not require the apocalypse proof build, cost or size of 1D bodies. "It's solid and doesn't let me down", "Shoosh, we're filming right now", "[Quiet shutter noise at wedding]", etc.

1DX: _Those_ people. "Welcome to my studio", "We're invading Asia. Thought I'd tag along", "It was this or the obsidian steering wheel for my yacht" :

- A


----------



## candyman (Feb 2, 2013)

Whenever a CEO is giving an interview, he/she has to consider the stockmarket. Investors and stakeholders are closely listening to each word. My reading of this interview is that his words should push sales. Like, 7D is still a great camera. The successor will enter new territory with higher price. Get a 7D now while still available for a good price.


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 2, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> lopicma said:
> 
> 
> > I am still unclear as to what the "lesser" cameras markets are. I get the 1D series as professional, but to me, I feel the 5D falls into the professional category as well. Is this wrong? I never thought of the 7D as a pro camera until recently, but the xxD series and the Rebel series (xxxD) seem to blend into one convoluted pile.
> ...



Love it.


----------



## that1guyy (Feb 2, 2013)

x-vision said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > With the current price of the 7D and the large number of used and refurbs available in the $1000 - $1200 range, I'd wonder who would buy a 70D that was not the equal of a 7D??
> ...



Yes and the Rebel line will magically disappear right?


----------



## M.ST (Feb 2, 2013)

The new designed sensor in the 7D replacement is a big step up in image quality (low and high ISO range). The prototypes in the field also have a new processor in it.

My advice: For all people that look at the 6D wait until the 7D replacement is announced. Maybe the 7D replacement meets your expectations better than the 6D. The 7D replacement will be not a cheap camera because Canon lets you pay for speed, image quality and the features.

I like the 7D replacement to replace my teleconverters with the "top of the line APS-C body".


----------



## iP337 (Feb 2, 2013)

@Lopicma
It's best to consider all single digit EOS cameras to be "professional" level, although I wouldn't buy into the whole prosumer/consumer marketing speak, with good glass you can take great pictures and videos with even a Rebel "Txi"(xx0D) but the more expensive cameras just make it easier. And a better analogy would be the 1Ds is to the 5D(high MP Full Frame for Studio and Landscape work) as the old 1D is to the 7D (a cropped fast shutter burst camera for Sports and Wildlife work).

@CarlTN
I respectfully disagree with just about everything you've said in this thread. I doubt Canon will go with a new crop factor since they are heavily invested in the 1.62x EF-S lenses which supposedly already have some vignette issues on Sony's 1.5x sensors. It will likely be improved micro-lenses, rear sensor lighting or better CR2 noise processing to makeup for APS-C's lack of signal to noise and dynamic range. 

I think Mt Spokane Photography brought up a very good point, for a long time the "x0D" line has been Canon's main segment but Canon would have to make the 70D appeal to people planning on a used or refurbished 7D for it to sell well. like what they did with the 6D, which is way better than 5D2. I actually haven't used the 6D yet (lol) but I've used (and hated) the 5D2 for a long time; I use the 5D3 and the best thing I found about it is the high ISO noise, I use it at 6400 most of the time but even at 25600 I found the noise to be appealing rather than the 5D2's 3200 ISO look, and the 6D is supposedly even better in that department. The noise is not only less but also more appealing as it's mostly fine monochrome noise in the shadows (kind of like how film used to look) and not bands of red green and blue specks. On top of that the 6D has far better video codecs, ergonomics and low light auto focusing (ok well I have used one, just not on a job yet so it doesn't count). I always felt ripped off for buying the 5D2 for over 2k (Rebel features with a Full Frame sensor I used to say) but I find the improvements in the 6D to be worth $300 over a used or refurbished 5D2.

@Ahsanford
I agree with your assumptions. If I may add to them, I assume the 7DmkII to have a 22.3MP APS-C senor, 41 cross-type at f/4 with 5 dual-diagonal at f/2.8, 10 fps bursts, 1080p60 H.265 codecs, dual cards with UHS-1 support, dual digic 5+, and clean 3200 ISO. I expect the mid $2000 range, not only to sperate the line from the 6D and 70D but also to help keep the 5D3 up in the $3000 range.

I'm optimistic with what I expect from the 70D(or will it be 8D lol), I assume it will "replace" the 7D just as the 6D has "replaced" the 5d2; but being realistic it will probably be like a 7D with built in wifi/gps, the Rebel T4i's 18MP sensor with STM lens support, a vari-angle touch LCD and UHS-1 card support. Actually more like a better built T4i(maybe it'll be called a T40i) with wifi and 7D features, but if it doesn't have improved ISO noise (clean 3200) and at least a 19 point (cross type) AF system with 6 fps bursts I will not be buying or using it. I hope it has the IPB and All-I video codecs but it looks like Canon is reserving those for the "xD" series cameras, so I'd just be happy with the better ISO noise I've seen in the 5D3/6D and willing to pay the $1500 that I assume it'll be priced at to keep the 6D from slipping down from $2000.

I just sold my 7D in anticipation of a new Canon APS-C body, my main concerns are Video and Sports photography so I'm hoping for a Canon replacement soon.

(+1 if you think I'm nerdy


----------



## NormanBates (Feb 2, 2013)

Is this really news?

What are the chances of:
* a 70D not being release at some point in the future
* Canon saying 7D2 won't have improved specs over 7D


----------



## crasher8 (Feb 2, 2013)

I for one would welcome an APS-C body being spec'd (and priced) in the semi pro arena. I'm a former 7D user and am glad to be done with it's noise. But Who wouldn't love more reach for a 2nd body that had ISO performance nearing the 5D3? I know I need a 2nd body by the end of this year and I will not be getting another mk3 (due to cost) and I have narrowed it to a dropped price Mk2 or the mythical 7D2 IF it's cleaned up over 6400.


----------



## roadrunner (Feb 2, 2013)

*Re: EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C is Unknown*



dave said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Getting back to the original story of this thread... By the time the 7D2 comes out, I think it will cost more than the 6D. This wound some people up when I last offered this, but I think a stellar APS-C body that prevents you from needing to buy the longest glass (because of crop) is worth its weight in gold to some folks. A $2K APS-C body, as such, is entirely possible.
> ...



I'm not even disagreeing that the 7DII may be worth more than the 6D (We will have to wait and see) but do you really think they would price it so much more than the 6D? From a marketing standpoint, wouldn't be much better to have the 6D and 7D at the same price point? In the 7D, you would have a better build quality and an absurdly fast fire rate. With the 6D, you would have better image quality and low light capabilities. I think these two cameras would be better of around the $1800 range (both of them), especially if the 70D is coming in around $1000.


----------



## hoodlum (Feb 2, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> The main critique of Canons current sensor technology is the DR (noise and banding) at low ISO. While I would love to be wrong, I think that the 7D segment is a very strange spot to introduce improvements to those aspects of their sensor technology. 7D is more about speed, AF, high-ISO than extreme DR at low ISO. The 5Dmk2-segment seems like a more likely place to radically improve this Canon weak spot (landscape photographers who can often afford shooting at low ISO and who have little control over scene lighting).
> 
> But then, the 5Dmk3 showed that Canon are willing to "re-target" their model ranges, so who knows.
> 
> -h



I think Canon held off introducing the high pixel density bodies (7D replacement and 30+MP FF) until the new sensor technology was ready. I was surprised they released the new FF bodies last year with the older technology as they won't be updated for a long while.


----------



## dave (Feb 2, 2013)

*Re: EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C is Unknown*

My guess is probably as bad as anyone's. However the longish wait for the 7D2 suggests it will be pretty good. I just reckon Canon are due to produce something really strong...which they won't be shy in charging for.



roadrunner said:


> dave said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


----------



## unfocused (Feb 2, 2013)

Just a quick thought regarding the 70D and 7DII.

Canon has three full frame cameras with three different full frame sensors in them. I wonder why we (myself included) think that the 7DII, 70D and top of the line rebels should share the same sensor, just because the previous generation did? 

Nikon rumors is reporting that the D7000 replacement is coming before April. If true, that pretty much guarantees that the 70D will be released soon as well. If the D7000 replacement does have a 24mp sensor topping out at ISO 6400 as reported, I would expect a similar sensor from Canon (22-24 mp).

Then, I wouldn't be surprised to see a D300s and 7DII replacement show up in the summer, with the 7D having a completely different sensor. Given Canon's recent pattern with full frame, maybe a 20 mp sensor with higher ISO performance. 

Canon has made themselves the king of low-light sensors. They've listened to their customers who say they will gladly trade a few less megapixels for clean high ISO performance. I think they may realize that is is a trade the 7D users would also gladly make.


----------



## EchoLocation (Feb 2, 2013)

the longer this goes on, the more i expect the 7DII to have a different sensor with new technology, an extremely good AF, weather sealing, 8fps, and cost $2500.
The 70D might be more like an updated 7DI with a flip screen, AFMA, 19pt af, and a $1400 price.
For the 7DII I think Canon will go after the educated birder or sports shooter who wants the extra reach of APS-C specifically and isn't afraid to pay for quality.


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 2, 2013)

EchoLocation said:


> the longer this goes on, the more i expect the 7DII to have a different sensor with new technology, an extremely good AF, weather sealing, 8fps, and cost $2500.
> The 70D might be more like an updated 7DI with a flip screen, AFMA, 19pt af, and a $1400 price.
> For the 7DII I think Canon will go after the educated birder or sports shooter who wants the extra reach of APS-C specifically and isn't afraid to pay for quality.



Like I said in an earlier post. Use of 1Dx batteries in the grip would be a HUGE upgrade (faster AF). Easy to engineer into the body and circuitry (more robust) and make a dual purpose grip similar to the BG-E11 that can use both 1Dx and LP-E6 Batteries.


----------



## gravy (Feb 2, 2013)

considering the overwhelming response to the last 2 "rumors" of APS-C cameras, it's apparent that APC near future is something that you'd have to be crazy to abandon if you want to sell cameras in large quantities and make a healthy profit -IMHO. the 7D never really appealled to me because I bought a 50D and was very happy with it for my shooting skill and requirements. but of course some want the high end APS-C and canon seems to be telling people to buy "cheap" full frame. I don't think this jedi mind trick is working.
I have my APS-C so I went full frame with the 5DIII and it is a much different experience in shooting, it's keeping me challenged which is a good thing but I still feel more confortable with the size and responsiveness of my 50D. all the benefits of APS-C can't be ignored and FF is not a replacement, it is different, better for some things not as good for others - not a one size fits all. I think canon is pushing this FF for all line so they can sell the 6D and 5DIII for awhile before offering customers what might be a better choice for them. 
by the way, my opinion is that they should replace the 7D with a better (than 7D) 70D and offer a APS-H 7dII but chances of that are low. it won't be good for canon to keep a high end APS-C out of there line up any longer as the FF crowd is probably becoming depleted pretty fast and the high end APS-C crowd is getting very agitated.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 2, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> But then, the 5Dmk3 showed that Canon are willing to "re-target" their model ranges, so who knows.
> 
> -h



My friend always said the 6D was really the 5D2's successor. He always viewed the 5D3 as some new segment between 5D2 and the 1-series, especially given the 5D3's heavyweight autofocus decision.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 2, 2013)

*Re: EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C is Unknown*



roadrunner said:


> I'm not even disagreeing that the 7DII may be worth more than the 6D (We will have to wait and see) but do you really think they would price it so much more than the 6D? From a marketing standpoint, wouldn't be much better to have the 6D and 7D at the same price point? In the 7D, you would have a better build quality and an absurdly fast fire rate. With the 6D, you would have better image quality and low light capabilities. I think these two cameras would be better of around the $1800 range (both of them), especially if the 70D is coming in around $1000.



My gut says $2K, but that's me building a camera around what _the market will expect this thing to be_.

But what if Canon wants to inject a strong sense of pro / 'top of the line APS-C' to the 7D2 to:


Maintain its place as the best wildlife/sports shooting company?
Tent up the price of all the APS-C segments below it?
Keep up demand for pricier EF-S glass like the 17-55 or 10-22?

i.e. What if it's 30 MP+, 12 fps, strong high ISO performance with a truly pro build? As improbable as it would be, such a camera would be worth more than $2K to most of us, I'd think.

- A


----------



## sailonset (Feb 2, 2013)

*Why not a 7D C?*

An APS 4K cinema/still camera.


----------



## crasher8 (Feb 2, 2013)

Isn't 'Pro APS-C' an oxymoron?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 2, 2013)

M.ST said:


> The new designed sensor in the 7D replacement is a big step up in image quality (low and high ISO range). The prototypes in the field also have a new processor in it.



I hope so. It's been a long time since they've done anything for low ISO and this would signal that they are back in the game and that the 5D4 and whatnot will have first rate sensors for low ISO again and that with the nicer Canon lenses and UI we can all forget about Nikon again and not need to make the switch.

It would also explain the long delay to the 7D2 and the high MP FF. They realize that their old process sensors have had their day and it's best to wait for the new process sensors at this point rather than have a 7D2 or 3D or whatnot need to be replaced in like just 12 months or less and the firestorm that would create.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 2, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> Isn't 'Pro APS-C' an oxymoron?



no


----------



## c.d.embrey (Feb 2, 2013)

I'm surprised that there is no mention of *Masaya Maeda's* interview at DPReview http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0336328811/cp-2013-interview-with-canons-masaya-maeda He seems to think that *Full Frame is the future* and the *Canon M is the perfect mirrorless camera.
*
Once-upon-a-time all PJs used Graflex cameras http://graflex.org/ Now PJs don't use Medium Format or 4x5 and Graflex is gone http://graflex.org/ Does the same fate await Canon, or do they wise-up and change their business model to fit the changing times ???

By the time the 70D and 7D2 arrive there's a good chance I'll have died of old-age


----------



## mws (Feb 2, 2013)

I like what they say about picking up were the 50D left off. I have a 50D as a backup to my 5Dii, and it is a very solid very capable camera. 

That being said I'd like to see some improvement in DR in a new sensor more then anything.


----------



## that1guyy (Feb 2, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> Isn't 'Pro APS-C' an oxymoron?



No it isn't. Since when does the size of the sensor dictate its "pro" status? If I use a point and shoot in paid, professional work, it becomes a pro camera. Also, the 7D is far more "pro" in any sense of the word, than a 6D. Does the full frame of the 6D make it pro?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 2, 2013)

that1guyy said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't 'Pro APS-C' an oxymoron?
> ...



+5 if I could.

Agree agree agree. The current 7D is a feature-laden camera for non-beginners. I see the 6D as a fairly nerfed camera that happens to be FF. I still contend -- though I have no data to back it up -- that a higher percentage of 7D owners are more serious shooters (shoot more, know their cameras' limits, features, etc.) than 6D owners. 

The idea that the sensor size singlehandedly differentiates between novice and expert is absurd.

- A


----------



## J.R. (Feb 2, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> Agree agree agree. The current 7D is a feature-laden camera for non-beginners. I see the 6D as a fairly nerfed camera that happens to be FF. I still contend -- though I have no data to back it up -- that a higher percentage of 7D owners are more serious shooters (shoot more, know their cameras' limits, features, etc.) than 6D owners.
> 
> The idea that the sensor size singlehandedly differentiates between novice and expert is absurd.
> 
> - A



I don't know whether such a sweeping statement holds true. If this were so the 5D2 (near identical to the 6D) would not have been a success. 

Anyhow, I see where you are coming from - most people who have bought the 6D are hobbyists who have upgraded from APS-C cameras to go FF. The "pros" on the other hand have gone for the 5D3.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 2, 2013)

J.R. said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Agree agree agree. The current 7D is a feature-laden camera for non-beginners. I see the 6D as a fairly nerfed camera that happens to be FF. I still contend -- though I have no data to back it up -- that a higher percentage of 7D owners are more serious shooters (shoot more, know their cameras' limits, features, etc.) than 6D owners.
> ...



Apologies for sweeping user generalizations -- that's unfair to many folks. Let me explain.

I use a 7D-owning friend of mine as an example. Like myself, he's an enthusiast. He possibly has the money to go FF, but his great hobby is shooting car races. He typically has his Sigma 150-500 on it. Reach is paramount for him. He knows his 7D in and out, and loves most everything about it. 

When I ask him about the 6D, it's a very simple conversation for him. The AF and burst rate for the 6D underweight compared to his 7D, and his go-to glass would no longer have the reach he'd need. So it's a not a $2k 'upgrade' to him, it's a $3-6k investment to get the 6D and new glass... _and possibly miss shots due to AF or limited burst rate._ Yes -- his keepers might be a bit better on FF, but he'd fundamentally have less keepers, right?

_For him_, the 6D is never going to happen.

In contrast, I have another friend who over 10+ years ago enjoyed shooting 35mm film cameras. When overwhelmed by all the tech in DSLRs today, he said:


Focal length multipliers are annoying. I understand and think in FF terms.
Why do I need 87 modes and dials and video and blah blah blah. I'll shoot manual.
I want to take great pictures of my family.

And he ended up with the Nikon D600.

I'm not calling the 7D friend a better photographer than the D600 guy, but the 7D guy knows his camera cold -- everything about it. The D600 friend is taking really nice snaps of his kids.

These two people are not the market, but I see in each of my friends exactly who Canon/Nikon are aiming for. I really do see the 7D camp as serious shooters with modest budget, and I see the 6D camp somewhat the opposite.

I'm sure there are family scrapbooking folks with 7Ds and serious pros with 6Ds, but I would argue that they are the exception to the rule.

- A


----------



## crasher8 (Feb 2, 2013)

Everything said about my oxymoron comment is contrary to the 1D series being Canon's only pro camera bodies. Maybe I should have clarified and said "From a marketing viewpoint…" 

Yeah I know you can sell your P$S prints and be a pro, I have a Holga. There are always the great Internet Explainers who NEED to come along and well, explain things. Usually these guys come across as having no sense of humor. Well, in this case there was no usually.


----------



## Black berry (Feb 2, 2013)

I'm not too fussed about the 70D.
For me the 7D11 should excel and be a significant improvement over the 7D in some key areas: NOISE, image quality and AF. It should also remain a 1.6 crop.
I don't personally give a hoot about WIFI, GPS or video, I just want an absolute killer that does the basics in class leading style!


----------



## SpecialGregg (Feb 2, 2013)

Just wondering - what if Canon shocked us all and came out with a new sensor that was a new format - a 1.5 or 1.4 APS-C? I know Nikons are already a 1.5x. Is it possible to make the sensor any bigger and still maintain the necessary mirror distance to keep compatibility with EF-S lenses? That would be interesting.


----------



## TheBadger (Feb 3, 2013)

The 70D will be DOA or Canon figured out we will buy anything with a Canon logo on it. The population aiming for the XXD series are not ignorant - for the price of it, most of them know what to expect from it.


----------



## jd7 (Feb 3, 2013)

iP337 said:


> I've noticed I have fewer keeps now with the 5D3 than the 7D. The auto focus seems a little slower, probably due to the shallower depth of field but if I stop it down past f/4 (that's like past f/2.4 DoF on APS-C) the cross-type points turn off and I lost a ton of light! On the 7D I could go all the way down to f/5.6 (that's like f/9.5 DoF on full frame) and still have 19 working cross-type points or just keep it at f/2.8 and get a better light, better focus shot with the 7D. I just need the better ISO noise so please Canon hurry up!



Couldn't help but jump on a couple of things there ...

As another poster has already said, the number of cross-type focus points doesn't vary when you stop down past f/4. The way the focus points perform depends on the maximum aperture of the lens you're using, but not the aperture value you choose for a particular shot.

Also, f/5.6 on an APS-C sensor does not give you DOF equivalent to 9.5 on 35mm (full frame) sensor. The DOF is determined by the lens, not the sensor. The only sense in which a full frame sensor gives different DOF is when you take into account the FOV. In other words, if you want two photos with the same FOV, and you're shooting with the same lens, the APS-C camera will need to use a shorter focal length - and DOV decreases as focal length increases. So, for example, use a 24-70 lens on an APS-C camera and it will have to be set at 30mm to give the same FOV as the full frame camera at 48mm, so if you take two shots with the same FOV (and same aperture value, of course) the APS-C camera will give you greater DOF. But if you take two shots at, say, 30mm the DOF will be same on both cameras (again, assuming the same aperture value was used).

That's my understanding anyway. I'm pretty sure it's right, but happy for anyone with greater knowledge to correct me if I'm wrong!

On another point, I'm a bit confused by what Canon is up to. After I read the initial story about the Maeda interview on DPReview I was thinking Canon saw it this way: No low end compacts - leave that market to mobile phones. Small sensors for super-zoom compacts with better low light performance as sensor tech improves. APS-C sensors for mirror-less ILC cameras which will take the place of the high end compacts and APS-C DSLRs (and I have to say, if there was an M series camera (so relatively small and light) with a good viewfinder (optical is my preference), good control system (buttons/dials/joystick!) and autofocus and high speed shooting like a 7D ... and it could use existing EF/EF-S lenses and smaller/lighter M lenses ... that would be tempting! Any reason it couldn't be done? And 35mm sensors for DSLRs, which will be limited to the pro/semi-pro/high end enthusiast levels (however you might define those levels, but you get the idea). But then the follow up info on CR seems to suggest maybe there will be more APS-C DSLRs ...??


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2013)

iP337 said:


> If you stop down past f/4 the cross-type points turn into normal old af points that only reference details in a single direction.



Sorry, but that's not true. You can stop down to f/22 if you want, the aperture you select is irrelevant - phase-detect AF is always performed with the lens wide open. 

What _does_ matter is the max aperture of the lens - that's what determines available AF points. An f/5.6 lens (e.g., 100-400 or 28-135) on a 5DIII is limited to the central 3 columns of cross-type points (plus 40 single orientation points), whereas that same lens on a 7D gives all 19 cross-type points. An f/2.8 or faster lens gives 41 cross-type including 5 high-precision points on a 5DIII and 19 cross-type including one high-precision on a 7D. 

The other issue is AF accuracy. Having shot with both the 7D and the 1D X (same AF sensor as 5DIII), I find the frequency of AF misses to be noticeably lower with the 1D X (even with the lateral points). Some aggregated data from Reikan FoCal are consistent with that observation.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 3, 2013)

iP337 said:


> If you stop down past f/4 the cross-type points turn into normal old af points that only reference details in a single direction.



Everyone's corrections are on point. The lens (plus possible slowdown from a teleconverter) dictate your focus point options.

A simple test if you aren't convinced re: AF running only at wide open. Set your camera to a narrow aperture with the AF on. Face a mirror and half depress the shutter. The aperture should be and stay wide open during focusing. The aperture only shrinks down at full shutter press or if you press the DOF preview button.

I suppose if you want to verify your focus point options, see what points are / are not allowed after a changeout from a fast to a slow lens. I lack a slow lens to test this on my end, but I presume it would work.

- A


----------



## bseitz234 (Feb 3, 2013)

My understanding was that DOF was affected by sensor size, in that it was deeper in proportion to the crop factor. So an APS-C camera had 1.6x deeper DOF than FF equivalent. For instance, in terms of framing (FOV) and DOF (not exposure and amount of light hitting the sensor), the 17-55 2.8 was equivalent to a FF 27-88 f/4.5. Anyone?

Edit: Neuro? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=449.msg10548#msg10548


----------



## bseitz234 (Feb 4, 2013)

*Re: EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C is Unknown*



viggen61 said:


> dare we dream - f/8 AF on the center point.



I hadn't dreamt of that yet, since I just assumed it would remain exclusive to 1-series bodies. But that would be pretty cool.... I will start dreaming.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2013)

*Re: EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C is Unknown*



bseitz234 said:


> viggen61 said:
> 
> 
> > dare we dream - f/8 AF on the center point.
> ...



Canon announced that the 5DIII will get f/8 AF with a firmware update due out in April.


----------



## AprilForever (Feb 4, 2013)

*Re: EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C is Unknown*



ahsanford said:


> This has been somewhat beaten to death on the 2013 roadmap thread:
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12606.0
> 
> ...



Indeed. I agree. There are many pro shooters with small budgets who shoot 7D's. I run into their blogs all over the internet, like dewdrops on a virtual spiderweb. A lot of them use 500f4s or 300 2.8's. 

The 7D mk II will indeed hopefully appeal mightily to us bird people who don't want to lug an 800 5.6 around just to get reach...


----------



## jrista (Feb 4, 2013)

*Re: EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C is Unknown*



AprilForever said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > This has been somewhat beaten to death on the 2013 roadmap thread:
> ...



Agreed. The extra reach is a huge benefit of the 7D. That said, there IS something to be said about using the 600/4 or 800/5.6 on a FF sensor...the thinner DOF really helps subject isolation, and the wider aperture and lighter weight of the 600 f/4 L II IS make it an extremely appealing lens, regardless of whether you have a 7D or a 1D X. 

As a bird photographer myself, the one thing I really do struggle with on the 7D with cheaper lenses is blurring out my backgrounds. At f/5.6, or f/4 with 300mm or shorter lenses, getting that nice creamy background while still getting as many pixels on subject as possible can be a tricky ordeal. These days, I love it when I rent a 500mm or 600mm f/4 L II lens...the high spatial resolution of the 7D really packs on the detail like you've never seen, and the extra stop of light means better exposures and less noise on top of the extra reach (which, in FF terms, is 800mm or 960mm, respectively).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 5, 2013)

*Re: EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C is Unknown*



jrista said:


> The extra reach is a huge benefit of the 7D. That said, there IS something to be said about using the 600/4 or 800/5.6 on a FF sensor...the thinner DOF really helps subject isolation, and the wider aperture and lighter weight of the 600 f/4 L II IS make it an extremely appealing lens, regardless of whether you have a 7D or a 1D X.
> 
> As a bird photographer myself, the one thing I really do struggle with on the 7D with cheaper lenses is blurring out my backgrounds. At f/5.6, or f/4 with 300mm or shorter lenses, getting that nice creamy background while still getting as many pixels on subject as possible can be a tricky ordeal. These days, I love it when I rent a 500mm or 600mm f/4 L II lens...the high spatial resolution of the 7D really packs on the detail like you've never seen, and the extra stop of light means better exposures and less noise on top of the extra reach (which, in FF terms, is 800mm or 960mm, respectively).



In the other (very similar) thread, in your post with the very nice finches, you stated, "_I would say the lens is the most important IQ factor. The AF system and frame rate are second. The image sensor is third,_" and went on to discuss the benefit of FF at higher ISOs. All of those reasons are actually why I prefer to use the 1D X with the 600 II, rather than the 7D. The AF is not only faster, it's more consistently accurate on the 1D X than the 7D, and the faster frame rate is nice. In very bright light, the 7D does very well; but, even in 'relatively good' light, it often takes a fairly high ISO to achieve the desired shutter speeds (especially with long lenses), and of course, birds often perch in the shadows...

I'm curious - you like the 7D for the 'reach' and 'pixels on target' especially with a supertele, but have you tested a 1D X or 5DIII along side the 7D in the same scenarios? I ask because in many cases, empirical reality trumps theory. Case in point are some tests from AlanF. Some time back, he posted some real-world testing of the 7D (and note - _only_ the 7D), and came to the conclusion that, "_It doesn’t matter how superior the 5D III is than the 7D, the laws of optics and information theory dictate that at 9 m you can resolve the barbs of feathers on a 7 D but you see a blur with the 5D using a 600mm lens._" That conclusion sounds quite consistent with your comments. 

Subesquently, Alan got himself a 5DIII and *actually* tested it along side the 7D - he concluded, "_... the 5D III is just about as good for detail as the 7D (now my back up) and has all the advantages of much better focussing and lower noise,_" and also stated, "_...in practice the higher IQ and lower noise of the 5D III more than makes up for the loss of crop factor._"

Personally, I had planned on keeping my 7D even after getting the 1D X, for the (supposed) 'reach advantage' in focal length-limited situations. In practice, I came to the same conclusion as AlanF, and my 7D has been a very nice paperweight (ok, that was a little harsh...let's say, a very nice backup camera  ).


----------



## dlleno (Feb 5, 2013)

nicely articulated, Neuro. we're all anxious for you to obtain a 7D2 and repeat the experiment!


----------



## AlanF (Feb 5, 2013)

Thank you Neuro. Here is something else I wrote in another test in the Forum EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C? My answer here:

"Agreed about both taking very good pictures. The 7D under the right conditions performs just as well as its expensive brother. On the other hand, much of the advantage of crop in giving extra reach is illusory. I did some iso12233 chart tests at 100 iso with the 100-400mm L on both bodies as it is a very popular but not very sharp lens - its defects according to Plamen's analysis should show up more on the crop. At closer distances where the closely spaced lines on the chart are easily resolved, the 5D III gave clearer, more contrasty images. At long distances where the lines were at the limits of resolution, they were marginally better resolved by the 7D but IQ was much poorer from poorer contrast and so again the resultant overall image was not better.

The good news for the bird photography 7D owner is that you have camera that can equal the best (at lower iso).
The good news for the bird photography 5D III or 1DX owner is that you are not really disadvantaged by not having the crop factor (but both owners probably don't need me to tell you that). "


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 5, 2013)

Thanks, Alan! Definitely agree. It really highlights the point that the real 'crop factor advantage' is lower cost. In 'good' conditions, the crop body isn't at a disadvantage, which means the 7D is a great value. When conditions are less than ideal (poor light, low contrast subjects), the FF camera has the advantage (but getting that advantage requires a higher cost - especially getting good AF along with the FF sensor, i.e., the FF advantage is blunted on the 5DII/6D by the AF system performance, at least as it pertains to those of us who shoot birds).


----------



## jrista (Feb 5, 2013)

*Re: EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C is Unknown*



neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The extra reach is a huge benefit of the 7D. That said, there IS something to be said about using the 600/4 or 800/5.6 on a FF sensor...the thinner DOF really helps subject isolation, and the wider aperture and lighter weight of the 600 f/4 L II IS make it an extremely appealing lens, regardless of whether you have a 7D or a 1D X.
> ...



First off, thanks for the link to AlanF's test. Very interesting stuff, and seems to empirically validate what I've experimented with in a more ad-hoc fashion. That said, it should be noted that the higher spatial resolution of the 7D is only really a benefit in focal-length-limited scenarios. If you are stuck with a specific lens (say the 600 II), unable to get closer to your subject, and unable to add a teleconverter, then the 7D will always be capable of resolving more. In all honesty, that is frequently a contrived scenario, and you more often than not are at least capable of slapping on a 1.4x TC, and in the case of the 1D X (and hopefully soon enough, for the first time, the 5D III as well) adding a 2x TC. For the more skilled, getting closer to your subject is also not a problem, and most professional bird photographers have the sneaky skill to get within feet of jittery subjects, so filling the frame and getting as many pixels on subject is rarely an honest real-world problem when money and time are no object (or at least a secondary concern).

Assuming no limitations, the superiority of the 1D X and 5D III over the 7D is very clear. I have not had the luxury of trying out a 1D X (I would LOVE to, but doing so would eat a small but measurable chunk of my savings for a 600 II lens), however I've had the chance to try out a 5D III with a 500mm f/4 L from another photographer out in the field once (as well as messed with them in local shops). The 5D III AF system is truly phenomenal, as is it's high ISO performance. The thing I like about the 5D III's AF system is its speed and consistency. I like my 7D, and its AF system for the most part...however compared to the new 61pt AF system it's consistency issues are rather obvious...it does not always lock, and sometimes when using AI Servo it never really "locks"...it jitters back and forth (particularly with medium and lower contrast detail under the AF points). When AF does lock, it locks well...but the 5D III seems to nail it and nail it well just about every time. I can only imagine how much better the 1D X must be. I definitely believe the AF system is far more important than the sensor...if you can't get the subject in focus, it doesn't really matter how good the sensor is, you'll end up with irreparably soft detail. 

I completely agree that there are too many situations where, with the 7D, I am unable to achieve the shutter speed I need at ISO settings of 1600 and below. During overcast days, birds in shadow, etc. I am all too often stuck at ISO 2000, 2500 (which can be semi-usable) and sometimes 3200 or more (usually UN-usable on the 7D for artistic purposes). Between the better AF system and greater ISO latitude of the 5D III, I believe it could give just as many if not more keepers. Those keepers may not be as detailed and sharp as the 7D, but if we are talking action or ISO limited scenarios, the 7D is either going to end up with blurry subjects due to subject motion, or extremely noisy images with poorer color fidelity. I would generally agree with AlanF, that in most _practical situations_, the 5D III is plenty good enough and its higher IQ/lower noise will make up for the loss of crop factor. It is for these reasons that I would love to get my hands on a 5D III...the only reason I have not yet picked one up is because of the 7D II rumors. I'd at least like to see how the IQ fares on the 7D II before I spend money on a 5D III...maybe Canon will finally get their 180nm sensor tech out the door, improve DR a bit, and improve the noise characteristics of their APS-C sensors. If they do, and slap on a better AF system, I'd probably pick up a 7D II first, and a 5D III later.

Sharpness is certainly a key factor in image quality, but in my previous examples I failed to mention anything about color fidelity. At high ISO, the 7D REALLY does suffer greatly in terms of color fidelity. You lose a lot of richness, contrast (both global and micro), and even sharpness and detail at higher ISO settings. I would say ISO 1600 is really the threshold. Below it, IQ is generally fine on all levels. Above it, IQ begins to suffer, particularly on the color fidelity front. At or above ISO 3200, you start suffering on all fronts, and few images are really keepers (and even those that may be, are usually not useful outside of downscaled web uploads). I believe I'd happily take either the 5D III or 1D X over the 7D for low-light bird and wildlife photography. I do not believe they would offer the same amount of detail...subjects would be softer at any given distance and focal length...but every other aspect should be better at any ISO setting.

If I had the luxury (or rather, the financial ability) of buying both the 1D X and the EF 600mm f/4 L II, I would in a heartbeat. I've seen bird photos taken with the 1D X, and they are beyond phenomenal. The quality of noise is stellar, it's dynamic range seems to be the best Canon has to offer right now, and the AF system is to die for. At 1200mm (600/4 + 2x TC) you have the necessary reach to pack on the pixels, so the detail discrepancy between the 7D drops considerably (although, by my calculations, you would really need around a 1570mm lens to fully close the gap...6.95^2 / 4.3^2 = 2.61x per-pixel area difference; 2.61 * 600mm = 1566mm). 

I am quite certain my 7D would end up becoming a paperwieght, too, if I picked up a 1D X.


----------



## dlleno (Feb 5, 2013)

chauncey said:


> Would you all be so enthusiastisc about FF bodies if that new 7D ends up have 22MP, with comparable stats of course?



FF enthusiasm with long glass will still continue... Canon's strategy is working  . But a good point to keep in mind here is that so far the comparison is with different technology life cycles -- the tired old 18mp sensor of the 7D compared with the more recent FF sensors of the 5D3 and 1DX. To be more complete, earlier comparisons between 5D2 and 7D, for example, still point to the relatively small advantage of the 7D, even when the conditions are optimized. The real world IQ gap between the 1.6x crop factor technolgy and the FF technolgy continues to be rather wide, which is precisely what is being pointed out here. 

imho, the key question yet to be answered is "how much of a jump in IQ will the 7D2 sensor represent?" We just don't know. Without clear data, or until we see/hold/use the real thing, the prognostications will not be that meaningful I suspect. Moreover, the expectation of a new technology 22mp 1.6x crop sensor with comparable IQ to that of todays FF sensors is still very unlikely, as far as my own "not very meaningful" prognostication is concerned


----------



## jrista (Feb 5, 2013)

*Re: EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C is Unknown*



Jackson_Bill said:


> First, I'd like to say thanks to all of you for a well-reasoned and polite discussion.
> I only have one camera (7D) and have been debating getting a 5Diii.
> 
> 
> ...



Very good points, and it is good to point out that focal-length limited scenarios are not "impossible". I did mention that they were often contrived, but that does not necessarily mean always, and the higher density (and therefor added reach benefit) of the 7D sensor is definitely a bonus in those scenarios.



Jackson_Bill said:


> Now that I have that out of my system, I'm hoping you guys can point out the error in my thinking here:
> Given the "focal-length-limited" scenario above, and assuming good light (I know, that usually (or should I say almost always) isn't the case but speaking theoretically here), you want a 16 x 20 print and you crop the FF to the 1.6 dimensions to get equal subject sizes on the final print. I think that gives you 216 pixels per inch for the 18 MP APS-C vs. 150 for the 22 MP FF crop. Doesn't that give the APS "reach" some advantage?



Definitely. There will always be the benefit of added reach with any sensor that has a higher pixel density. It does not necessarily have to be an APS-C sensor, it could be a FF 47mp sensor, which has the same pixel pitch (4.3 microns) as the 7D. If the 7D II hits the street with a 24.4mp sensor, that is about the same a FF 64mp sensor. Reach is a benefit of pixel density, not necessarily form factor.

That said, it really depends on how clear and sharp, and to some degree noisy, your images are. From what I've seen in terms of bird photographs from the 1D X, it is impeccably sharp! Even in a focal-length limited scenario, you could probably blow its images up pretty far and still be satisfied. You may not have the same amount of detail, but that shouldn't really matter in most cases...so long as the detail captured looks good...is sharp, clear, with high color fidelity and low noise. Noise is less of a problem in print for enlargements up to 2x native size, as print density is generally much higher than screen density. Even at 150ppi, you are still about 45% more dense than the average 103ppi 30" screen (or 106ppi 27" screen). In the case of screens with 96ppi, that same print is 57% more dense, and in the case of a 72ppi screen, the same print is over 100% more dense. 

Also, keep in mind, printers don't really print pixels when all said and done. They print ink droplets. The driver's rasterizer (or perhaps a custom rasterizer) converts image pixels into a set of ink droplets of varying color with a given dithering to maximize the quality of the image in print. Depending on how carefully you tune your images for print (manually resize to the exact native size and PPI for the print you intend to make, manually set white and black points, manually verify gamut, etc.), and depending on the capabilities of the rasterizer you use (Canon and Epson driver rasterizers actually do a pretty good job these days, but better third-party alternatives can also be found, usually for a price), the appearance of noise in the final print can take on a very different quality, usually a better quality. I rarely have problems with noise in my prints, usually generated with fine-tuned images tweaked in PS6, and printed with the Canon driver, on a PIXMA Pro 9500 II and various high quality fine art papers. The only time I do have problems with noise is with images taken at ISO settings above 1600, and then, usually ISO 2500, 3200, and higher.

Getting all of the complexity out of the way, though. I would say that for the most part, just about any image taken at an "artistically usable" ISO setting on any camera can usually withstand up to a 2x enlargement, assuming you maximized the potential of whatever gear you are using. The 1D X offers numerous benefits over the 7D, and even if you crop it, you should be able to enlarge that cropped image up to about 2x or so before you could really notice any IQ issues in print. If you really wanted to enlarge a 1D X crop to the same size as a 2x enlarged 7D full size image, you could probably pull it off thanks to the IQ benefit of the 1D X. The detail level wouldn't be the same, but I'd bet few people would notice.


----------



## jrista (Feb 5, 2013)

I guess I should clarify that in my sharpness examples with the 7D, I was not trying to say that the 7D is a better camera than the 5D III or 1D X. _I just wanted to make it clear that *the 7D sensor is most definitely not a bad sensor*._ It gets a lot of bad rap, but in my experience more of the "issues" with the 7D have to do with the lens, more so than with the sensor. The considerable complaints about 7D softness, and as a byproduct of the softness its noise, in my opinion, are really more complaints about the 7D revealing flaws with ones gear.

My ultimate point was that if you use high quality glass designed to resolve enough detail for high resolution sensors (i.e. any EF Mark II generation L-series lens), you'll utilize the 7D to its fullest. It is not a great high ISO performer, but at all the ISO settings it does perform well at, the overall IQ should be no different in real terms than what you may get out of any better camera. You will, however, find that the 7D's limitations are greater than that of newer Canon cameras. It falters at higher ISO settings where the 5D III and 1D X shine. It's AF system lacks the consistency and accuracy of the new 61pt AF system. 



*Sharp detail eats noise for breakfast; Noise eats softness for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.*

Maximize sharpness with high quality glass, and noise will quickly become a background issue with the 7D. Use inferior glass, and the limitations of both the glass and the 7D will even more quickly become readily apparent.


----------



## garyknrd (Feb 6, 2013)

Sharp detail eats noise for breakfast; Noise eats softness for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

That is a very true statement. I am using very good glass also. I was out yeaterday and it is amazing. I can now shoot at OSO 1250-1600. Expose to the right and crop to about 33-50%. Before I got the good glass I would of argued with you on this. But it has now taken me from ISO 800 max to 1600 max. The only problem is with AF. The 7D is just not good enough with the new glass? It really makes using a T.C. a problem. I have stopped using a T.C. with the 7D. Low light with a T.C. for me is just a nightmare.

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos


----------



## jrista (Feb 6, 2013)

garyknrd said:


> Sharp detail eats noise for breakfast; Noise eats softness for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
> 
> That is a very true statement. I am using very good glass also. I was out yeaterday and it is amazing. I can now shoot at OSO 1250-1600. Expose to the right and crop to about 33-50%. Before I got the good glass I would of argued with you on this. But it has now taken me from ISO 800 max to 1600 max. The only problem is with AF. The 7D is just not good enough with the new glass? It really makes using a T.C. a problem. I have stopped using a T.C. with the 7D. Low light with a T.C. for me is just a nightmare.
> 
> www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos



I would agree that the 7D AF is not great at f/5.6. It is fairly slow, even in decent light (it is only really "fast" in great light). That poses a bit of a problem for any AI Servo tracking when you are initially locking on. Once locked, it does a fairly good job...but there is no question the new 61pt AF system is vastly superior in all cases, and much faster at f/4 and faster at f/5.6.


----------



## WildBill (Feb 6, 2013)

I must be doing something wrong because I continue to take gorgeous pictures with my 7D. After reading this thread, and several others on this forum, I'm now convinced my camera is a piece of junk. I hope I can figure out what I'm doing wrong so my pictures will match my camera's abilities and I can move on to FF where all real photographers belong. I appreciate any help you guys can give me.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 6, 2013)

WildBill said:


> I must be doing something wrong because I continue to take gorgeous pictures with my 7D. After reading this thread, and several others on this forum, I'm now convinced my camera is a piece of junk. I hope I can figure out what I'm doing wrong so my pictures will match my camera's abilities and I can move on to FF where all real photographers belong. I appreciate any help you guys can give me.


No one is saying that. Quite the opposite: in good light, the 7D is the equal of the 5D III in many circumstances at a fraction of the price. But, the 5D III is better at high iso and has more consistent and faster focus. I have taken great photos and will continue so to do with my 7D. But, the 5D III loses very little if anything by having 1.6 times less reach.


----------



## jrista (Feb 6, 2013)

AlanF said:


> WildBill said:
> 
> 
> > I must be doing something wrong because I continue to take gorgeous pictures with my 7D. After reading this thread, and several others on this forum, I'm now convinced my camera is a piece of junk. I hope I can figure out what I'm doing wrong so my pictures will match my camera's abilities and I can move on to FF where all real photographers belong. I appreciate any help you guys can give me.
> ...



I think he was being sarcastic.  That said, you get a few feet from your subject, and even the "lowly" 100-400mm L lens on the 7D will do you justice:







A Killdeer in late fall/early winter, taken with the 7D, 100-400mm @ 400mm, 1/1000s, f/7.1, ISO 200. The 7D can certainly take great photos, even with "crappy" glass like the 100-400 L (although I will say, I really kind of hate the boke from the 100-400...really NOT of any great quality). For those who miss WildBill's sarcasm...keep in mind, we've been comparing the 7D to the likes of the 5D III and 1D X. Arguably two of the best DSLRs the world has ever seen...


----------



## iP337 (Feb 6, 2013)

WildBill said:


> I must be doing something wrong because I continue to take gorgeous pictures with my 7D. After reading this thread, and several others on this forum, I'm now convinced my camera is a piece of junk. I hope I can figure out what I'm doing wrong so my pictures will match my camera's abilities and I can move on to FF where all real photographers belong. I appreciate any help you guys can give me.



+1 

Even though I traded my 7D for a 5D3 I would trade the 5D3 for a 7D2. I'm hoping it's just an APS-C 5D3 that's a stop behind in the signal to noise ratio and dynamic range.


----------



## garyknrd (Feb 6, 2013)

Even though I traded my 7D for a 5D3 I would trade the 5D3 for a 7D2. I'm hoping it's just an APS-C 5D3 that's a stop behind in the signal to noise ratio and dynamic range.

+1 Man I would be in heaven.


----------



## -Jarred- (Feb 6, 2013)

garyknrd said:


> Even though I traded my 7D for a 5D3 I would trade the 5D3 for a 7D2. I'm hoping it's just an APS-C 5D3 that's a stop behind in the signal to noise ratio and dynamic range.
> 
> +1 Man I would be in heaven.



Agree'd, I'm upgrading from a 600D and I'm finding it difficult to not just blow it on a 7D instead of waiting for the MkII. While the 7D is still a hell of an upgrade over the 600D, I know I'll be kicking myself when the MkII gets released if I caved...

MUST. HOLD. OUT. LONGER.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 6, 2013)

iP337 said:


> WildBill said:
> 
> 
> > I must be doing something wrong because I continue to take gorgeous pictures with my 7D. After reading this thread, and several others on this forum, I'm now convinced my camera is a piece of junk. I hope I can figure out what I'm doing wrong so my pictures will match my camera's abilities and I can move on to FF where all real photographers belong. I appreciate any help you guys can give me.
> ...



As it looks like a 7D II is not coming out for ages, I bought a 5D III but didn't trade in my 7D but kept it because it is still a great camera. If and when the 7D II comes out and it overtakes the 5D III, I'll trade in the 7D for it and have the best of both worlds - a great FF and a state-of-the art APS-C.


----------



## The Bad Duck (Feb 6, 2013)

-Jarred- said:


> garyknrd said:
> 
> 
> > Even though I traded my 7D for a 5D3 I would trade the 5D3 for a 7D2. I'm hoping it's just an APS-C 5D3 that's a stop behind in the signal to noise ratio and dynamic range.
> ...



Buy a lens or some lighting equipment. Or a carbon fibre tripod. Or a bag. Or photography books. Or a printer. Or a monitor. Or.... Luckily there are plenty of stuff to buy while waiting for a new camera body!


----------



## AlanF (Feb 6, 2013)

jrista said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > WildBill said:
> ...



Here are the reasons why I have spent a fortune on bodies and lenses. I first started bird photography for the sheer fun of taking photos and identifying the birds, using the 7D and the 100-400mm L. I should have stopped there but a really good Dutch photographer uploaded one of my best photos to a Dutch website www.birdpix.nl. Then, I got hooked on getting more good photos uploaded. It proved to be difficult because they have a team of moderators who reject for the slightest of reasons: too noisy; not sharp enough; oversharpened etc etc. My initial rate of acceptance was about 50% of those shots that were in focus (the 7D is a bit erratic). Here is a photo of a Killdeer I took last year in New Hampshire - it is not much worse than yours but it was rejected as not being sharp enough. In order to get acceptable photos I had to get reasonably close. So, I upgraded the 100-400 to a 300mm f/2.8 II plus extenders (ouch). This doubled or maybe tripled the distance away I needed to get to take sharp photos because of the additional focal length (600 mm) and lens sharpness. Still, I was having too many photos rejected because they were too noisy or if I lowered the noise they became too soft. So, I bit the bullet and bought the 5D III for its lower noise and better focus. Now, this has increased again the number of photos I can sneak past those picky moderators. The unexpected bonus of the 5D III that the loss of crop has not significantly altered the range of distance it covers. 

The "rejected" Killdeer photo, also taken with Canon 7D and 100-400mm L.


----------



## insanitybeard (Feb 6, 2013)

jrista said:


> I guess I should clarify that in my sharpness examples with the 7D, I was not trying to say that the 7D is a better camera than the 5D III or 1D X. _I just wanted to make it clear that *the 7D sensor is most definitely not a bad sensor*._ It gets a lot of bad rap, but in my experience more of the "issues" with the 7D have to do with the lens, more so than with the sensor. The considerable complaints about 7D softness, and as a byproduct of the softness its noise, in my opinion, are really more complaints about the 7D revealing flaws with ones gear.
> 
> My ultimate point was that if you use high quality glass designed to resolve enough detail for high resolution sensors (i.e. any EF Mark II generation L-series lens), you'll utilize the 7D to its fullest. It is not a great high ISO performer, but at all the ISO settings it does perform well at, the overall IQ should be no different in real terms than what you may get out of any better camera. You will, however, find that the 7D's limitations are greater than that of newer Canon cameras. It falters at higher ISO settings where the 5D III and 1D X shine. It's AF system lacks the consistency and accuracy of the new 61pt AF system.
> 
> ...



+1 to that! Totally agree. I use the 10-22 EF-S for landscapes and at magnifications close to 100% the 7D reveals that lens' limitations- loss of resolution away from centre frame, fine detail becoming more smeared and 'muddy' towards the edges. Not to say it is a bad lens, I love it for what it can do. To a lesser degree my 17-40 L used on the 7D has it's limitations revealed by the camera in a similar way. Of course really good wide angle lenses are harder to design than telephoto lenses. Using the 70-200 f4L IS or the 60 EF-S macro on the 7D shows what the sensor can really do- get it right and it rewards me with fantastic detail, and corner to corner as well.

Thing is, most of my photography is landscape. I don't have the money to go full frame at the moment, and I have often wondered how much better my landscape pictures would look with a FF body and decent lens. I suppose resolving fine- and often small - details in landscape scenarios is one of the toughest tests for a lens and sensor. Of course, it's true to say if I can't make the shot look good on the 7D, A FF body is not going to magically make my pictures look wonderful.


----------



## TeenTog (Feb 6, 2013)

I'm pretty excited for the 70D. I'm hoping that it will stay around the $1200 price range, and have vastly improved ISO performance. However, if Canon throws in wifi and GPS, it would probably drive the price up, making it out of many people's price range. As for the 7D Mark II, it'lll be interesting to see what exactly they add.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2013)

*Re: EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C is Unknown*



Jackson_Bill said:


> Now that I have that out of my system, I'm hoping you guys can point out the error in my thinking here:
> Given the "focal-length-limited" scenario above, and assuming good light (I know, that usually (or should I say almost always) isn't the case but speaking theoretically here), you want a 16 x 20 print and you crop the FF to the 1.6 dimensions to get equal subject sizes on the final print. I think that gives you 216 pixels per inch for the 18 MP APS-C vs. 150 for the 22 MP FF crop. Doesn't that give the APS "reach" some advantage?



For a 16x20" print, probably no discernible difference. For a 30x4-" print, yes, the higher resolution of the uncropped APS-C image would be a benefit (again, assuming you're shooting at low ISO and with a fast enough shutter so noise and subject motion don't compromise your image).



Jackson_Bill said:


> As far as slapping on the teleconverter, I already did that with the 7D.



But also consider that on the 1D X today, and on the 5DIII in a couple of months, you can slap a 2x TC on an f/4 lens and still have AF, whereas you are limited to a 1.4x TC with the 7D. 



chauncey said:


> Would you all be so enthusiastisc about FF bodies if that new 7D ends up have 22MP, with comparable stats of course?



Probably yes. Going back to jrista's accurate statement, "_I would say the lens is the most important IQ factor. The AF system and frame rate are second. The image sensor is third,_" you could use the same lens on the 7DII, but it would depend on the 7DII's AF system, frame rate, and high ISO performance. A 7DII with a 1D X/5DIII-like AF system (say, 40-ish points with 20+ crosses), 10 fps, and a new sensor fab yielding a stop or more of real (i.e. RAW, not JPG-engine based) lower noise...that I would be enthusiastic about.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2013)

AlanF said:


> If and when the 7D II comes out and it overtakes the 5D III...



I'm pretty sure we'll see a 7DII. But 'overtakes the 5DIII' is a pretty big IF. Technological improvements in sensor manufacturing are wonderful, but overtaking the 2.6-fold larger light-gathering area of a FF sensor is a tall order for APS-C. Can it be done? Yes...but the relevant question is can _Canon_ do it?

But if it comes even close (e.g., within one stop of the current FF on ISO noise, which is better than the 1.3-stop difference purely based on sensor area), that will make for a difficult choice, especially if Canon also opts to give the 7DII a much-improved AF system (accuracy/consistency of the 1D X/5DIII, >20 cross-type points) and 10 fps...


----------



## AlanF (Feb 6, 2013)

Neuro, by "overtakes" I mean the extra 1.5xcrop reach combined with improved IQ iso and focussing turn into a real advantage for bird photography. Of course, if you are not limited by trying to photo tiny birds at long distances but are using the whole frame, then the FF wins every time.

My major reason for buying the 5D III was that I got fed up with having to take several shots with the 7D to make sure that one was in perfect focus for the extreme conditions I operate under, especially when using RAW. It wasn't really the sensor issue. But, now I have the FF, I am delighted with it.


----------



## DanielW (Feb 6, 2013)

> Of course, it's true to say if I can't make the shot look good on the 7D, A FF body is not going to magically make my pictures look wonderful.



In spite of the unresolved personal issues some folks seem to have :-X, it's been a very informative topic. Jrista's and Neuro's comments are always great and pertinent; plenty to learn from them. Thank you! 
I've been struggling to decide whether to go FF or not, and although I _can_ afford it, maybe I _should_ not. There are photos taken 50 yrs ago with very limited equipment that I still can't take with my 60D, TTL, AF and so on. I couldn't agree more with WildBill and insanitybeard; going FF will *not* improve my photos. The thing is, I seem to get carried away much too easily by new technology and by forum threads, as if hoping that someone else will make me a better photographer. I could own a 1DX and would still be the same lazy-ass photographer I am, taking the same crappy pics. It's like buying some AB toner and vibrating platform crap and hoping to get thin with only 7 mins a day, so I can spend the rest of the afternoon on the couch finishing that package of Chunks Ahoy I opened in the morning. 
(Hmm, guess I just got hungry...)
I agree with jrista's comments on Topaz DeNoise. All of a sudden, my 60D is great at ISO 1600 and very good for my kid's pics at 3200. Don't need more. I'll upgrade my 60D to a 7D (mark 1!) so I can have AFMA for a little over $1,000, better AF and still have built-in flash for using as a commander with my only 430EXII. My 17-55 f/2.8 is on its way already.
(Funny to think that only a few months ago people were hoping for Canon to put the 7D's AF system on the 6D, and now it's just not good enough.)
I want more, but I don't need more; more clearly put: I don't deserve more just yet. (Plus, my wife won't let me...  )
Cheers!
Daniel


----------



## chauncey (Feb 6, 2013)

> Don't mean to go further off topic, but I was wondering how one identifies said glas? Could you dish out some rough MTF estimates to go by?


Do a lot of reading here http://www.canon-europe.com/Support/Documents/digital_slr_educational_tools/en/ef_lens_work_iii_en.asp
Scroll down to the MTF part...basically the longer lenses do better and cost more. LOL


----------



## jrista (Feb 6, 2013)

eyeland said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > if you use high quality glass designed to resolve enough detail for high resolution sensors (i.e. any EF Mark II generation L-series lens), you'll utilize the 7D to its fullest
> ...



As far as MTF's go, effectively "perfect"...all factors measured at nearly 1.0 (>0.97) almost right through the corners. Corner performance should only drop off a few points, around 0.7 or greater. Just look at the MTF's of any of Canon's new Mark II Telephoto and Supertelephoto primes. Every single one has a near-perfect MTF, even wide open.


----------



## jrista (Feb 6, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I should clarify that in my sharpness examples with the 7D, I was not trying to say that the 7D is a better camera than the 5D III or 1D X. _I just wanted to make it clear that *the 7D sensor is most definitely not a bad sensor*._ It gets a lot of bad rap, but in my experience more of the "issues" with the 7D have to do with the lens, more so than with the sensor. The considerable complaints about 7D softness, and as a byproduct of the softness its noise, in my opinion, are really more complaints about the 7D revealing flaws with ones gear.
> ...



You have some kind of innate need to prove that Canon sensors "suck", Mikael. Because of that, you always miss the point. Before you dive off into some inane discussion about how a few points difference in DR or SNR at high ISO actually matters, you really need to read every post of this entire thread. Maybe read it a few times, and really get all the details into your brain. Relatively, speaking only about the sensor, Canon sensors are a few percent...yes, *JUST A FEW PERCENT*, worse than Sony sensors. However the real-world examples of IQ from the 7D clearly show it it is a highly capable *CAMERA*. So, read the entire thread, detail for detail, a few times...and SEE what we are SAYING: 

_*Photography is about THE CAMERA...not the sensor. In that respect, the 7D is an extremely capable camera. *_


----------



## insanitybeard (Feb 6, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I should clarify that in my sharpness examples with the 7D, I was not trying to say that the 7D is a better camera than the 5D III or 1D X. _I just wanted to make it clear that *the 7D sensor is most definitely not a bad sensor*._ It gets a lot of bad rap, but in my experience more of the "issues" with the 7D have to do with the lens, more so than with the sensor. The considerable complaints about 7D softness, and as a byproduct of the softness its noise, in my opinion, are really more complaints about the 7D revealing flaws with ones gear.
> ...



Why does everything have to be defined/quantified and brought back to the Canon vs Nikon D800/D7000 etc etc argument? jrista said it is 'not a bad sensor'. He did not compare nor try to compare it to anything else in the quoted post. Here we go again. What I believe he was trying to say was that the 7D is capable to deliver very good results when used correctly. Maybe not as good as some other cameras in certain areas but there is more to it than that. So if you care to quote me or ask me to provide evidence or figures or to substanciate my claims, know that I am not interested in justifying myself nor responding to you any further on this matter. I am just sick of this whole 'Nikon is better' thing, which you insist on bringing into (virtually) everything. Nikon may utilise 'better' sensors at the present time, regarding sensors ONLY, but there is more to a picture than your DR and signal noise graphs. When the D800 and D7000 sensors are old technology and have been surpassed and outclassed by newer technology, does that mean we can slate them for being rubbish?


----------



## jrista (Feb 6, 2013)

AlanF said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Hi Alan. I understand the feel of rejection, I've had that occur all too frequently as well. That said, there are some things I've learned recently about my bird photography that have opened my eyes to the difference between a truly artistic bird photograph, executed not only with technical prowess but also style. The photo of your killdeer is not bad in any technical sense. It is a well executed shot. 

If I was critiquing that shot for a well-known magazine, online or paper, I would look beyond just the technical execution, though. For what it is, it is brightly lit, clearly focused for the subject size and distance, and well exposed. Artistically, however, it makes a few of the same mistakes I was making for the bulk of 2012. Here are a few tips:

[list type=decimal]
[*]*Aim for engaging photos.*
An engaging photo is one in which the viewer is drawn to and able to virtually engage with the key subject or subjects.
Extraneous elements beyond the subject tend to just be distractions, so follow the rule of subtraction whenever possible.
Eye contact with the subject is engaging.
Interaction between multiple subjects is engaging.
[*]*Watch the perspective.*
Very low, almost ground-level angles are best for shorebirds. That minimizes DOF just around the bird, and really blurs out the background to nicely isolate the subject.
[*]*Watch the pose.*
You want the bird's body to be either broadside to the camera, or pointed at a slight angle toward it. 
Other angles tend to be less engaging...possibly even off-putting.
[*]*Watch the head angle.*
You want the bird to be looking strait at the camera in the best case. 
Birds looking out, up, or elsewhere are less engaging, except when another subject is involved.
When two or more subjects are involved in some activity, say a parent sharing with its offspring, head angle should fit the activity, and need not be directly engaging with the viewer.
[*]*Watch the lighting.*
Direct, flat lighting tends to eliminate the visibility of detail, even if the detail is resolved by the lens.
You want the sun behind you, not overhead, preferably to a slight angle to one side.
A sun _phase angle_ of a few degrees, over the shoulder where the bird is pointing is usually preferable for ideal shading to bring out the most in resolved detail.
[*]*Fill the frame!*
The amount, and sharpness, of detail really boils down to getting as many pixels on subject as possible.
When a pixel is a small fraction of the size of the smallest element of resolved detail, you've achieved the holy grail of IQ.
High density sensors definitely help to get more pixels on subject, but larger/lower density sensors with longer lenses or closer subject distances do just as well, if not better (i.e. 18mp APS-C vs. 22.3mp FF...the FF will ultimately be capable of packing on more pixels for the same subject size in frame).
[/list]

You've done fairly well with #1 & very well with #4. The photo is fairly engaging, although the body angle is a little off-putting. The key issues are with the lighting (much too flat and harsh, almost as though it was flashed or came out of a snoot), and with the rest of the composition...perspective, subject size, environment, etc. The bird is a beauty, but the environment it is in is kind of boring, dull, and because there is a fair amount of only slightly blurred detail, a little distracting. The same bird in its element, wading along a shore somewhere with a creamy water backdrop and possibly a creamy soft sandy or muddy foreground, with the bird either broadsize or angled slightly towards the camera, would make for a much more artistically and aesthetically pleasing, less distracting, and engaging photo.

I should point out, I've received several critiques on the killdeer photo I posted here. It has its own problems. The head angle is not ideal...the bird is actually looking slightly up, not directly at my camera. The depth of field is a bit too deep, I probably should have been at f/5.6, maybe f/4, however I was using the 100-400mm lens, and an f/5.6 or f/6.3 aperture would have softened a lot of the detail. The perspective is not ideal...it could have been a bit lower, helping to blur more of the foreground and more of the background, softening the somewhat distracting highlight boke in the background. 

Well...sorry for the OT! I guess we could copy this to another thread if necessary....


----------



## jrista (Feb 6, 2013)

*Re: EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C is Unknown*



neuroanatomist said:


> chauncey said:
> 
> 
> > Would you all be so enthusiastisc about FF bodies if that new 7D ends up have 22MP, with comparable stats of course?
> ...



Neuro's nailed it on the head. Sensor should really be the third-highest consideration, not the first...at least not in all cases. There are some obvious issues with the current 7D sensor, namely banding at low ISO in the shadow tones and high noise at ISO settings above 1600. Those should really be fixed. But, assuming they are not...if we get all the other features Nero mentioned like 10fps and a 40pt AF system with better AF drive firmware and a more powerful battery in the 7D II....I'd probably still buy one. The other features would overpower the negative of sensor noise for me, and it would certainly be a step up from the 7D I have now.


----------



## eyeland (Feb 6, 2013)

Great thread  
Was waiting for the 6D to drop in price or the 70D to be announced.
As I probably just landed my first properly paid photo-job however, I am on the verge of caving and getting another 60D or a 7D and a 24-70VC. (probably a 7D since the price difference is small here - 750$ vs 1100$)
Sure, I'd love to be on the frontline of new tech, but I am sure that the 18mp beater will serve me well until I can afford to go FF or 7Dmk2. This thread might just have been the last push I needed.
Just wanted to express my appreciation for all the stuff I learn here  - Neuro, Jrista and AlanF, I appreciate your eloquent explanations alot!


----------



## AlanF (Feb 6, 2013)

Thanks Jrista for those useful tips. I am used to rejections (from Nature, Science, Cell etc). But, I have learned a lot from the rejections and criticisms and have improved my technique significantly since last year. Here is a kingfisher taken with my 7D and a reed bunting on my first outing with the 5D III - I love both cameras - both are 100% crops), and higher resolution closer up of a goldfinch last week on the 5D III.


----------



## jrista (Feb 7, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Thanks Jrista for those useful tips. I am used to rejections (from Nature, Science, Cell etc). But, I have learned a lot from the rejections and criticisms and have improved my technique significantly since last year. Here is a kingfisher taken with my 7D and a reed bunting on my first outing with the 5D III - I love both cameras - both are 100% crops), and higher resolution closer up of a goldfinch last week on the 5D III.



One other recommendation. Ease up on the NR a bit (or even a lot). If those are full frame crops, you are either decimating your detail via NR, or something is wrong with your lens. On both cameras, if you were able to get the birds that large in the frame, you should be getting as much detail as I did in my orange morph house finch shot (if not more).


----------



## iP337 (Feb 7, 2013)

Have you guys seen this?
http://panasonic.co.jp/corp/news/official.data/data.dir/2013/02/en130204-6/en130204-6.html

I haven't read up on it much but my initial thoughts are; "Looks awesome; should provide great lowlight and dynamic... Diffraction?! Won't that hurt sharpness?"

Also Mikael is right, Canon sensors are lagging a bit, but have you tried using a Nikon (or a Sony for that matter)? IMHO, what Canon lacks in their senors, is more than made up for in their ergonomics (and third party support). Also (referring to that graph) wouldn't you expect a 15MP and 16MP senor to have better Dynamic Range to an 18MP sensor? Everything's a trade off


----------



## AlanF (Feb 7, 2013)

jrista said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Jrista for those useful tips. I am used to rejections (from Nature, Science, Cell etc). But, I have learned a lot from the rejections and criticisms and have improved my technique significantly since last year. Here is a kingfisher taken with my 7D and a reed bunting on my first outing with the 5D III - I love both cameras - both are 100% crops), and higher resolution closer up of a goldfinch last week on the 5D III.
> ...



The two small ones have the birds only 500 pixels high as they were os far way (40 yards through a 600 mm lens). When it closer, I can do much better. Here is a 1596x1260 crop from the centre of the 5760x3840.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 7, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> OK
> You can try to down load raw 2 files, one from 5dmk2 and one from d800, sun set, both cameras exposed the same regarding time/f-stop and 100iso and exposure after the high lights, to reproduce the high lights intact , then Im adjusting the lower levels / shadows with the same parameters in camera raw , and later the same adjustments in photoshop with lifting the lower levels / shadows : look at https://picasaweb.google.com/106266083120070292876/5dmk2AndD800DRSunSet
> 
> 
> ...



well... that is not a appropriate link. that kinda link will link to home drive of whoever has gmail account ("#my-drive".


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 7, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> and the results look like this if I lift the shadows even more. Nikon d800 to the left and 5dmk2 to the right
> THIS IS the results of 14 stops DR with clean shadows in lower levels and compared to 11 stops Canon DR with banding and pattern noise.



once again... 

1. yeah we do all care about dynamic range. BUT noise in low light is what we care the most.
2. if we want more dynamic range, we would perform hdr shots
3. most of us do not want details of the sunny sky at noon, except you

note: if you are that good, then please explain why mr. micheal freeman shot a landscape with f/32, shutter .5 second and 20mm focal lengh (probably somewhere in page 15-20 of his book). AND STOP TALKING ABOUT THE "DR" THING SINCE MOST OF PEOPLE IN THIS FORUM WILL PROBABLY NOT LISTEN NOR RESPECT YOU BASED ON GIVEN INFO.


----------



## jrista (Feb 7, 2013)

Could a mod move all the Mikael Canon vs. Nikon stuff to some separate, dedicated thread for that topic? I would really prefer we don't destroy ANOTHER thread with the same old debate. People HAVE been asking for Mikaels original RAW files, but that discussion really doesn't belong in this topic. It belongs elsewere, isolated, in its own little world where the debate that will inevitably rage on won't ruin any other peaceful discussions.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 7, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



i careless about that one since canon offer good low light iso. like i said if i want to get more detail then i am using hdr *bracketing" and yes, i can manage myself to handheld up to 1/5s. my images are mostly snapshot but it probably look better than yours and your friend "Aglet".

these images: one was taken with my mouse pad to test handheld (at 1/5s) ability (turned off all light in my room, the only available source light was from my notebook. taken with my canon 7d). another one is the only one of my snapshot landscape with cokin graduate filter (taken after 4 months of using dslr).

note: i am traveling for work; therefore, i download these images back from my personal site...


----------



## babiesphotos.ca (Feb 7, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Could a mod move all the Mikael Canon vs. Nikon stuff to some separate, dedicated thread for that topic? I would really prefer we don't destroy ANOTHER thread with the same old debate. People HAVE been asking for Mikaels original RAW files, but that discussion really doesn't belong in this topic. It belongs elsewere, isolated, in its own little world where the debate that will inevitably rage on won't ruin any other peaceful discussions.
> ...


agreed


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 7, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> you do not understand the difference, I can use what ever shutter speed . f-stop I want with one exposure, tell me how can you do the same with the camera on a tripod and taking 2 or more exposure. ? a example: running people in front of the camera and sunset behind, or fast running cars or what ever



1. yes, those posted images were taken only one exposure and no repeat shot
2. with tripod or without tripod, you can take hdr depending on you iso and skill, want to learn? learn yourself from jay maisel.
3. people in my picture were not my subject, therefore, i was careless. however, i consider that as a lucky thing since it is add more live to the image (imo)

sigh... i am getting tired of talking to old guy like you...


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 7, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



did i say that i am careless about that one and i do care about clean noise at high iso, not full of color noise like nikon? if you care, keep it for yourself since number of us in here have shown no appreciation about what you are talking about. why making noise, nikon hire you to say that in here?


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 7, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



those images are better than yours though... i am not that stupid to pay for that much money per month even though my pay rate is more than double (if i do not want to say triple) the shown amount per year...


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 7, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> yes Im paid 40000USD / month + what ever gears I want.
> ugly? Im showing the different sensors characteristics, I have aspirations to make the picture quite



yep, those are ugly. not those images in here. i am saying those images that you have taken for universities and images that you have posted on you facebook (if they are all the right one).

REALLY, SHOW ME YOUR BEST OF BEST IMAGE AND DO NOT GO OUT THERE AND JUST STEAL LIKE YOU HAVE DONE AIITE... I DO NOT JUDGE IT MYSELF BUT I WILL LET SCOTT KELBY (A PHOTOSHOP MASTER AND NIKON SHOOTER) JUDGE IT...


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 7, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



taking images is not my career though, but i know that i am better than you from taking picture to probalby science (chemistry, physics, math, programming languages, you name it but not biology) too...


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 7, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > you are a fanny man
> ...



use rapidshare or mediafire instead...


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 7, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> babiesphotos.ca said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



i am laughing my a*s off when reading your "meaning of sensor physics".


----------



## TheSuede (Feb 7, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> The difference between a .CR2 or .NEF file and a DNG is that you can work the RAW file and then save to DNG and it appears unedited, you have clearly already edited the Canon file. What tiny bit of credibility you had due to your obviously limited but deep knowledge of one specific of a sensor has just been blown out of the water.
> 
> Mikael, you are an irrelevance.



Now I'm interested. Please show me a set of files - one .cr2 and one .dng made from that cr2 file - where the image data inside the DNG has been significantly altered...?

Of course it can be done. I could change the content of just about any raw file from any camera maker. Canon and some others have a control sum data tag that is supposed to protect against that kind of tampering, but that checksum encoding has been cracked since several years. So it's definitely not impossible, it just takes some work.

What I question is the general availability of those tools, and that you think that just about anyone can do it. AND the fact that you erroneously think that any normal program can change the image content of a raw file before saving it as a DNG. Yes, some EXIF tags may be repositioned, and some extra data may be saved - but the original image data is copied in a bit-perfect way. Bit-perfect as in "no single bit of the resulting image surface has changed between the original raw and the dng".

_(actually that isn't 100% true, only 99.999% - Since Nikon and also Sony can use a kind of gamma / area coherency compression when saving a raw file, round-off faults in the conversion can appear since the DNG is LS-JPEG compressed, without gamma. That is, errors on the scale of +/-1 bit in a 14-bit file, or errors more than 13Ev down)_

But still, show me the two files where the DNG has been seriously and provably tampered with. YOUR files, not someone elses.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Feb 8, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...


Mikael, I think that is overreacting. Private simply called you something twice here and to me it didn't come out as an insult. I think you can be very harsh in some of your comments towards other people also which I find completely unnecessary. I don't understand why you are taking all threads into a discussion about sensor performance. A couple of weeks ago I asked you a question about reducing noise and you gave me a good answer that actually help me along. You more experienced and knowledgeable guys are really valuable on this forum sharing your insights and helping us less experienced on the way. 

You being Swedish (as me) means that you've followed the debate the last few weeks about internet hate and how people anonymously are bashing and insulting other simply because they are expressing their views. You're a bigger man than that.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 8, 2013)

TheSuede said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The difference between a .CR2 or .NEF file and a DNG is that you can work the RAW file and then save to DNG and it appears unedited, you have clearly already edited the Canon file. What tiny bit of credibility you had due to your obviously limited but deep knowledge of one specific of a sensor has just been blown out of the water.
> ...



agree... i think that he thought that we have no way to find out or compare the two files. he is totally wrong... LOL


----------



## jrista (Feb 8, 2013)

Is there any chance a mod could split this thread into two...the original thread up to the point Mikael came in with the screenshot of the D800 v.s 5D III, and everything from Mikael's post on in another thread...maybe "D800 vs. 5D III - The Truth"? This was a great thread until Mikael derailed it again. It would be nice not to lose the thread and the prior discussion due to the new debate.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 8, 2013)

jrista said:


> Is there any chance a mod could split this thread into two...the original thread up to the point Mikael came in with the screenshot of the D800 v.s 5D III, and everything from Mikael's post on in another thread...maybe "D800 vs. 5D III - The Truth"? This was a great thread until Mikael derailed it again. It would be nice not to lose the thread and the prior discussion due to the new debate.



+1 

I woke up to see another great thread going rapidly downhill due to off topic comments and back and forth arguing. Guys, we don't need to get the Nikon cameras in every discussion, please take it up in a new thread.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 8, 2013)

yeah that rat that jumped off the empire state building just hit the ground


----------



## J.R. (Feb 8, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> yeah that rat that jumped off the empire state building just hit the ground



Oooh ... Post some pics


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2013)

J.R. said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > yeah that rat that jumped off the empire state building just hit the ground
> ...


Bright sun on the side of the building, deep black beady little rodent eyes and have to push the exposure 4 stops to see the detail in the matted fur. Gonna need at least 14.4 stops of DR, better not use a Canon.


----------



## CanNotYet (Feb 8, 2013)

Ok, I think everyone needs a time out here.

Mikael, I am sure you mean well, and have excellent points to back up your claims, but please start your own thread discussing DR, banding, comparing sensors and such. It is NOT on-topic here.

The rest of you, don't bite. It turns into a flame war every time.

AND, I would ask you all to keep the tone polite. I know that it is hard when you get emotionally engaged, but for the rest of the forum's sake, please constrain yourselves. 

Now, back on-topic: I think 70D and 7D2 will both be APS-C, as will all their successors. When the day comes and Canon goes 5 FF-models, they will no longer be successors of these lines, but rather something new. Like the 6D. (Canon could ofc reuse the names).

I think there will always be a place for pro "sub-FF" sensors, just because of the reach. Canon knows this, and for them, putting a APS-C sensor in the same body as a FF camera is a cost-effective way to create a new camera.

So, I would prepare for APS-C 7D2 and 7D3. I think it is only a question of what they improve every time, not change in sensor size.


----------



## eyeland (Feb 8, 2013)

CanNotYet said:


> Ok, I think everyone needs a time out here.
> Mikael, I am sure you mean well, and have excellent points to back up your claims, but please start your own thread discussing DR, banding, comparing sensors and such. It is NOT on-topic here.
> The rest of you, don't bite. It turns into a flame war every time.
> AND, I would ask you all to keep the tone polite. I know that it is hard when you get emotionally engaged, but for the rest of the forum's sake, please constrain yourselves.


+>1


----------



## CanNotYet (Feb 8, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> A small sensor does not inherently have "more reach". A sensor of dense sensels does have more reach. Often, smaller sensors have more sensel density than large sensors, but this is no rule written in stone. The D800 seems to point towards FF sensors using the same sensel tech as APS-C sensors.
> 
> -h



Yes, I know. Sorry for leaving that out. I mean that it will always be cheaper to make a small high density (APS-C) sensor, than a large high density (FF) sensor, and, as a consequence, the APS-C sensors will be leading the way in this (ofc the compact camera sensors are already there and improving).

It is simply a matter of scale  (pun intended)


----------



## DanielW (Feb 8, 2013)

CanNotYet said:


> Ok, I think everyone needs a time out here.
> 
> Mikael, I am sure you mean well, and have excellent points to back up your claims, but please start your own thread discussing DR, banding, comparing sensors and such. It is NOT on-topic here.
> 
> ...



I'm glad that the people versus Mikael trial seems to have come to an end.
Regarding the new 7D: I'm in fact considering buying the current model ("mk1"), as it's better in almost every aspect than my 60D and will be cheaper when the mk2 is out. Even though better AF and low-light capabilities would be great, the current one is sure good enough for my needs (chasing my kid around being probably the most challenging situation I face). But... What do you more experienced guys think will be the price of the 7Dmk2? I might instead wait for the new model, if not too expensive.
Daniel


----------



## DanielW (Feb 8, 2013)

Wow, it looks like the trial didn't end, after all...
It feels like attempting to persuade Sheldon to sit in another spot on the couch.


----------



## CanNotYet (Feb 8, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> A 2x crop sensor would have even more reach. I think it is more important what camera sensors can deliver "sufficient" quality for the applications that most customers care about, what camera systems can deliver the right lenses at the right price etc.
> 
> It might well be that well see m43 and FF, but APS-C will disappear. After all, it is a fairly recent format and there are not _that_ many good lenses designed especially for it (but many lenses that work for both crop and FF).
> 
> -h


Yes. But Canon has shown their hand with the EOS-M, that they will stay with APS-C for a couple of generations of cameras. Why create the M-mount otherwise? It is made to optimize size for APS-C. Thats a LOT of intent going into a sensor size. The M-lenses will ALL be designed for the APS-C sensor.

Sure, they could adopt a 4/3 sensor. Or Nikons 2.7X. But they didn't.
And, being Canon, probably won't do it unless FORCED to. That is why I believe the APS-C sensor has many years left.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 8, 2013)

DanielW said:


> Wow, it looks like the trial didn't end, after all...
> It feels like attempting to persuade Sheldon to sit in another spot on the couch.



YAWN...


----------



## CanNotYet (Feb 8, 2013)

Mikael: Stop. Just stop. Feel free to start your own thread. This thread is about Canon EOS 70D and future Canon APS-C cameras.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 8, 2013)

Look at micro 4/3..... lots of sales there. Look at the Rebel lineup.... lots of sales there.

One would have to be a fool to argue that the image quality from a current high end FF camera and top quality lens is not better than that out of a reduced sensor size camera with an EF-S or micro 4/3 lens, but image quality is not everything to everyone.

Most consumers are not willing to pay $3000+ for a camera body or $1000+ for a lens. Most consumers want something physically smaller that they can carry around. Most consumers will be happy with "good enough", not "absolute best" image because they are not prepared to pay the penalty to go to the next level.

Of course the future will change..... does anyone think that things will stay the same with technology? 

I really don't understasnd how some people have read into this that APS-C will change into FF. The bulk of the camera buying public is far more interested in smaller and lighter and more megapixels...WiFi and GPS and shooting video have more appeal to them than debates over pixel well sizes, bayer filters, 180nm manufacturing technology, or whatever. Face up to it.... we are the geeks, we are the abnormal ones, we are the ones out of touch with what the majority see as reality.

So what is the future of APS-C? The future is that it will be the bulk of Canon sales. Most of those sales will be Rebels and mirrorless.... there will be various models with various capacities and whatever the higher end one does or is called, it will be the "Pro-APS-C" model.


----------



## DanielW (Feb 8, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Look at micro 4/3..... lots of sales there. Look at the Rebel lineup.... lots of sales there.
> 
> One would have to be a fool to argue that the image quality from a current high end FF camera and top quality lens is not better than that out of a reduced sensor size camera with an EF-S or micro 4/3 lens, but image quality is not everything to everyone.
> 
> ...



I am myself looking forward to trying the Fuji X-E1 or maybe X-E2 (or the Olympus OM-D EM-5), and will definitely buy the Fuji X20 when it's out. The EOS-M would be great, but both the lack of a viewfinder and the reported slow AF put me off. I love my 60D and will keep it for now (if fact I'll probably buy a 7D, be it mk1 or 2, and sell the 60D because it lacks AFMA), but if I have a smaller camera that can give me usable ISO 3200 I'll probably use it 80+% of the time. By then, I'll be able to decide whether I should keep the 60D/7D or not.


----------



## Dantana (Feb 8, 2013)

CanNotYet said:


> hjulenissen said:
> 
> 
> > A 2x crop sensor would have even more reach. I think it is more important what camera sensors can deliver "sufficient" quality for the applications that most customers care about, what camera systems can deliver the right lenses at the right price etc.
> ...



Sticking with APS-C for the M series makes a lot of sense for Canon. They can base the lenses for their mirrorless cameras on EF-S and EF designs. It's a lot easier to alter a lens design for a different image plane setback than it is to design a whole series of lenses based on a different sensor size. Plus, they can tout the larger sensor as having inherently better quality than a micro 4/3 sized sensor.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 8, 2013)

DanielW said:


> I am myself looking forward to trying the Fuji X-E1 or maybe X-E2 (or the Olympus OM-D EM-5), and will definitely buy the Fuji X20 when it's out. The EOS-M would be great, but both the lack of a viewfinder and the reported slow AF put me off. I love my 60D and will keep it for now (if fact I'll probably buy a 7D, be it mk1 or 2, and sell the 60D because it lacks AFMA), but if I have a smaller camera that can give me usable ISO 3200 I'll probably use it 80+% of the time. By then, I'll be able to decide whether I should keep the 60D/7D or not.



I shot 4/3 before making the jump to Canon. I jumped because I liked the long glass and the IQ of the Canons ( ended up with a 60D) more than the oly's.... At that point OLY was going to micre 4/3 and the lenses and user interface (at least for me) were terrible. As things now stand... the latest micro 4/3 have a marginally better IQ than the 60D and better high ISO performance.... a complete turnaround from 3 years ago.

I still prefer the Canon user interface and there are still no decent long lenses for micro 4/3 or 4/3..... but there is supposed to be a new 4/3 camera coming out soon that would retain the good user interface of the 4/3 bodies and promisses slightly better than APS-c IQ and ISO. The 4/3 12-60 and 50-200 lenses are as good as canon Lglass and weather sealed to boot! The new 4/3 is also supposed to be weather sealed....


In other words.... a pro level small sensor camera! Olympus thinks there is a market....


----------



## DanielW (Feb 8, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> but there is supposed to be a new 4/3 camera coming out soon that would retain the good user interface of the 4/3 bodies and promisses slightly better than APS-c IQ and ISO.



Wow, great news! From Olympus?

Edit: now I see, from Olympus. Sorry for the dumb question, I didn't pay enough attention. What's it going to be called? Are there any rumours to be read?


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 8, 2013)

Mikael, I see you are still posting those comparisons. I'll ask again, where is an example of your own best photo work?


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 8, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



Sigh.... in the great Canon/Nikon debate you forget other, and more relavant, cameras.... The hot technology here is GoPro.... glued onto the rat's ass and shooting 240 frames per second all the way down.... 

Can we get back to the topic..... Future of Pro APS-C?


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 8, 2013)

As soon as you post a link to an example of some of your best, or your favorite work, I will do the same. I don't think I'm one of the best ever, like you seem to see yourself...so the bar is higher on your end.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 8, 2013)

Um no, I don't care about your test comparisons anymore, I was just referring to your own work...as in, what you liked best, or think is best, or what your customers or clients liked best (of your own shots). I don't need RAW files, just something you have done that is good photography. Considering your years of experience, I just thought I would get to see some nice photography, and learn how to be a better photo artist.


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 8, 2013)

jrista said:


> Is there any chance a mod could split this thread into two...the original thread up to the point Mikael came in with the screenshot of the D800 v.s 5D III, and everything from Mikael's post on in another thread...maybe "D800 vs. 5D III - The Truth"? This was a great thread until Mikael derailed it again. It would be nice not to lose the thread and the prior discussion due to the new debate.



Seems thats all that happens these days. +1


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 8, 2013)

And what gets me, is that original screenshot was a 5D TWO vs. a D800...not 5D3. Or that's how I read it when I looked again, I could be wrong. Either way, I don't care. I've lifted my own little camera's files 2 or 3 stops with less noise than that, and at higher ISO. The end result isn't perfect, but it's usable. 

I can't imagine doing 5 stops worth of negative compensation on anything, nor having the need or desire to. It's interesting to look at and talk about for an hour...but not for days. How often do you need to include a diffuse sky with the sun in it? 

Most of the time, the sun is either more hidden than that by clouds, or fully out in a clear sky, or not even in the shot. In all those cases, you sure wouldn't waste time underexposing by 5 stops at ISO 100. What other shots need that much DR? Like where race car headlights are shining directly into the lens at sunset? Nobody cares.

In the summer here, even the same sky would be blown out worse, if you attempted to do the same thing. 5 stops wouldn't be enough. Has anyone in the USA noticed, that on a bright sunny day in winter time, there is about half as much light as there is on a bright sunny day in June? In June, it almost seems like the sun gets brighter each year. I can't imagine how bright it is closer to the equator. One day I'll find out, haha.

I just like looking at pretty pictures!


----------



## CanNotYet (Feb 9, 2013)

I agree on the high end EF-S lenses. The most blatant omission at the moment is in the telephoto range. A competitor to Sigmas 50-150 HSM OS springs to mind, or a telephoto prime in the 200-500 range with the weight reduction advantage of EF-S. (not as probable though)

Releasing one such lens would also reinforce the marketing of 7D2 as a sports/wildlife camera...


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 9, 2013)

Given that the 200-400 f/4 will finally be available for sale by July 31, or so I have seen (could be wrong)...I would think the 7D2 would be released at the same time.


----------



## candyman (Feb 9, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> ......... But perhaps more interesting is how it is going to differentiate itself as an expensive crop camera when there are FF cameras available at far lower prices now than there were in 2009. The simple answer would be "sports, birds-in-flight", but the 5Dmk3 is far more suited for those things than the 5Dmk2 was.
> 
> -h




Previous the entry FF (5D MKII) was cheaper than the crop for birding / sports (1D MKIV). So it is possible to introduce a crop for sports / birding (7D MK II) for a higher price as the entry FF (6D). The question is: how much more ....and.... is it on par or better than the 1D MK IV? If the latter, than for sure the price will go up to 5DMKIII level - maybe even higher.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 9, 2013)

CanNotYet said:


> I agree on the high end EF-S lenses. The most blatant omission at the moment is in the telephoto range. A competitor to Sigmas 50-150 HSM OS springs to mind, or a telephoto prime in the 200-500 range with the weight reduction advantage of EF-S. (not as probable though)
> 
> Releasing one such lens would also reinforce the marketing of 7D2 as a sports/wildlife camera...


There is a lack of long ef-s lenses... I would like to see some longer efs primes ( not zooms) but rather doubt I will see them as the masses prefer zoom lenses. Perhaps after some quality zooms come out, but certainly not before.

It may be about the right time or a "digic 6" to arrive... A 7D2 with digic6, new sensor technology, wifi, GPS, touchscreen AND decent button/dial controls would kick! And if were to include features from Magic Lantern it would annihilate the competition. 

And, of course, the 70D.... Even if they gave it a better digic, added the gimmicks like wifi and GPS, kept the articulated screen, it would still be a nice camera.... But once again, learn from Magic Lantern and add in some decent features through software.... Set yourself apart from the rabble (rebel  ).


----------



## tcmatthews (Feb 9, 2013)

Long time lurker I generally come here every-time I start thinking about getting a new DSLR. My plan has always been to build up my lens system then go full frame. As it turns out I really needed a new EOS 70D released Last year. I find the delay annoying but I realize that it is canons time table instead of mine. My 60D met with an unfortunate accident and Canon would not fix it. I also missed a number of good photo opportunities because my 60D was to big to carry around all the time. So I found my self wanting an "evil" mirrorless for general use and full frame for when I want to be serious. 

Because of the delay I bought a replacement 60D. I ended up buying a nex6 to satisfy my more portable camera needs and I have been impressed by the camera (Not by the lenses). My next camera will likely be a 6d or a 70D / 7D mark II. 

I really would like some improvements in Canons sensors before I spend my hard erned money. 
70D /7D mark II wishlist

A new sensor
20+ megapixel 
Reduced read Noise 
1-2 stops improvement in ISO noise
Better dynamic range.
Same great canon ergonomics and sensible button layout (hopefully closer to 60D size than 7D size)

I do not think is to much to ask. Like many on this tread I just wish they would announce the camera already. So we can all start complaining about the specifications already.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2013)

tcmatthews said:


> 70D /7D mark II wishlist
> 
> A new sensor
> 20+ megapixel
> ...



Interestingly, your 'wishlist' is a good description of the 6D, compared to your 60D...


----------



## eyeland (Feb 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Interestingly, your 'wishlist' is a good description of the 6D, compared to your 60D...


On that note, what would such specs mean for 70D/6D pricing?
Assuming that the 70D does not bring a revolution to the table but still offers better low light performance than 60D and perhaps afma, it would seem that it could easily end up being rather squeezed between the 6D and the rebel?
Or perhaps the 6D will not drop as much in price as we have come to expect of new canon models?


----------



## DanielW (Feb 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> tcmatthews said:
> 
> 
> > 70D /7D mark II wishlist
> ...



Indeed, looks like a 6D to me...
My wishlist for a new 7D:
- New sensor with better high ISO capabilities and better DR; 
- 100% VF;
- Little better AF system (in between the current 7D and 5D3, maybe);
- AFMA;
- on-camera flash (commander);
- 16 to 18 MP;
- 7D size and ergonomics;
- Two SD card slots;
- 1080p 60 fps video;
- US$1,800...


----------



## tcmatthews (Feb 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> tcmatthews said:
> 
> 
> > 70D /7D mark II wishlist
> ...



I am well aware of that. It along with cost is why I am considering a 6D. But owning and using a Nex6 I realize there is room for improvement in those areas. I want to see improvement in these areas. I also realize that canon subsidizes the R&D cost of its top line sensors through the sale of point-and-shoot and Rebel cameras.
Canon needs to improve its APS-C sensors to stay competitive and I believe they know that. Canon still has the best system as a whole when you consider lenses. 

It was not intended to be a full specification list. It should still have similar stutter speed and faster flash sink speed of the 7D vs the 6D.


----------



## x-vision (Feb 9, 2013)

DanielW said:


> My wishlist for a new 7D:
> - New sensor with better high ISO capabilities and better DR;
> - 100% VF;
> - Little better AF system (in between the current 7D and 5D3, maybe);
> ...



This is exactly my wishlist as well. 
Great minds think alike .


----------



## DanielW (Feb 9, 2013)

x-vision said:


> DanielW said:
> 
> 
> > My wishlist for a new 7D:
> ...



Well, there _is_ a market for such a camera, after all...!


----------



## weixing (Feb 10, 2013)

Hi,
For me, I'm not greedy:
- Improve AF,
- Improve low light AF
- 1 stop improvement in noise over current 7D (but preserve all the noise information like all the current Canon DSLR)
- 2nd SD card slot
- 100% crop 1080p HD video
- the rest can remain same as current 7D including price (hopefully)

Have a nice day.


----------



## DanielW (Feb 10, 2013)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> For me, I'm not greedy:
> - Improve AF,
> - Improve low light AF
> ...



Sounds good enough for me, too.
What's "100% crop" video?
Daniel


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2013)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> For me, I'm not greedy:
> - Improve AF,
> - Improve low light AF
> ...



I'd go for a second CF card slot. Mixing card types, forcing the use of slower SD cards, is kind of useless. I'm rather bummed the 5D III includes mixed card slot types. Everyone who has tried to use the SD to save a second copy of the image written to the CF has experienced a significant loss in FPS.

I'm curious about this comment, though:



weixing said:


> - 1 stop improvement in noise over current 7D *(but preserve all the noise information like all the current Canon DSLR)*



What exactly does that mean?


----------



## DanielW (Feb 10, 2013)

jrista said:


> I'd go for a second CF card slot. Mixing card types, forcing the use of slower SD cards, is kind of useless. I'm rather bummed the 5D III includes mixed card slot types. Everyone who has tried to use the SD to save a second copy of the image written to the CF has experienced a significant loss in FPS.


You mean two CF card slots?! 
Damn... Want to buy a dozen SD cards?


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 10, 2013)

7dMkII 

Love to see:
Use of 1d series batteries and voltage for slightly faster AF with a grip.
Better high ISO performance
8-10 FPS
AF menus like 1dx/5d3
No built in flash
Grip with a thumb stick like the BG-E11
Viewfinder latch like 1D series
61 point AF would be nice but I feel 40-50 would do just fine if they were as sensitive as the 5d3/1Dx
Close to or on par with 1d Series weather sealing (with grip too!).


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 10, 2013)

DanielW said:


> What's "100% crop" video?
> Daniel



There is a mode on the 60D where you can shoot 640x480 video taken from the 640x480 pixels at the center of the sensor. It's VERY usefull for image stacking in astrophotography....


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2013)

DanielW said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I'd go for a second CF card slot. Mixing card types, forcing the use of slower SD cards, is kind of useless. I'm rather bummed the 5D III includes mixed card slot types. Everyone who has tried to use the SD to save a second copy of the image written to the CF has experienced a significant loss in FPS.
> ...



That operate at 1/4 to 1/3 the speed of my CF cards? I can get up to 1000x CF cards, vs. 600x SDXC cards. Not only that, CF cards have a much lower latency, and buffer clear time with CF is three to five times faster (4-7 seconds for CF, 20 seconds for SDXC.) Even with the best of the best SDXC cards, they are still a slouch compared to even a moderate UDMA-7 CF card. I'll take the lower latency of CF at the same speed as an SD any day, even if it costs several times as much (although I'd say, given that I buy Transcend CF cards that have yet to fail me even once, the conversion rate is more like 3-4 SD cards per CF card, at mot.)


----------



## Hillsilly (Feb 10, 2013)

If it is up for a vote, I'm backing mixed card slots. SD cards might not be the fastest or most secure, but they are universally available. Every supermarket, tourist attraction and smaller camera shooter carries SD cards. And they're cheap. Plus nearly every laptop and tablet has a built in SD card reader. Mixed card slots give you the CF card slot for speed and reliability and an SD card slot for those "OMG I forgot spare memory cards" moments.

Besides, I thought we were almost at the point where memory card speed wasn't having a significant impact on camera FPS or buffers?


----------



## DanielW (Feb 10, 2013)

jrista said:


> DanielW said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


Shhh... Nobody's going to buy my SD cards if you say it out loud... 
Seriously, didn't think there was so big a difference. What about camera size with two CF slots?


----------



## DanielW (Feb 10, 2013)

RMC33 said:


> 7dMkII
> 
> Love to see:
> Use of 1d series batteries and voltage for slightly faster AF with a grip.
> ...


Why mess with my built-in flash wish? :'(


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 10, 2013)

DanielW said:


> RMC33 said:
> 
> 
> > 7dMkII
> ...



Weather sealing=)


----------



## weixing (Feb 10, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> DanielW said:
> 
> 
> > What's "100% crop" video?
> ...


 Also very good for taking video clip of small birds or birds that are far away... 

Have a nice day.


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2013)

DanielW said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > DanielW said:
> ...



It might add another millimeter. Personally, I wouldn't quibble about that if it meant I could dual-write to a backup to a second card simultaneously, though.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 10, 2013)

jrista said:


> That operate at 1/4 to 1/3 the speed of my CF cards? I can get up to 1000x CF cards, vs. 600x SDXC cards. Not only that, CF cards have a much lower latency, and buffer clear time with CF is three to five times faster (4-7 seconds for CF, 20 seconds for SDXC.) Even with the best of the best SDXC cards, they are still a slouch compared to even a moderate UDMA-7 CF card. I'll take the lower latency of CF at the same speed as an SD any day, even if it costs several times as much (although I'd say, given that I buy Transcend CF cards that have yet to fail me even once, the conversion rate is more like 3-4 SD cards per CF card, at mot.)


 
You are being generous with your estimate of SD card speeds.
The rated speeds for SD cards are only after a fresh low level format or when reading data. Once the card has been written to and then formatted with the normal in camera format, write speeds seldom exceed 5-10 MB/sec, even if its a really fast rated card. The issue is the time it takes to clear memory cells in order to write new data. CF cards do this much faster. 

Thats also why it is such a problem to use a CF and SD in the same camera and write to both. If doing that, get a dozen fast SD cards and low level format them. Then, after transferring and backing up your images, do a low level format. this will substantially improve their write speeds and they will go from being almost useless for large Raw or video files to merely slow.


----------



## iP337 (Feb 11, 2013)

I want mixed card slots; the only issue with the 5D3 is that it does not support UHS-I. 
The 5D3 only supports class 10 SD card speeds so it's limited to 10MB/s speeds, UHS-I (which is supported in the 6D) can do up to 50 or 104MB/s which is faster than the 40MB/s rated speed of the 266x CF card that I've used with my 7D without issue so as long as they continue to support UHS-1 in their new cameras I would love a mixed card slot. 

But that not why I'm here, check this out:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/9586/is-the-cheap-nikon-d5200-a-better-option-than-d800-for-video-no-moire-aliasing-and-good-detail

The Nikon D5200 is supposedly; video morie free, sharper, has a wider dynamic range and rather clean at ISO 3200. DxO is rating the noise just after its ISO 1600 mark (6D is rated just after ISO 3200 and the 7D was rated just after ISO 800) and in DPReviews new Studio Comparison photos for the D5200 it looks like it has less chroma noise too. This is really exciting me about the potential of the 70D, Nikon (Toshiba) has proved it could be done and Canon now needs something to compete with the image quality in this $800 body.


----------



## dlleno (Feb 11, 2013)

CanNotYet said:


> I agree on the high end EF-S lenses. The most blatant omission at the moment is in the telephoto range. A competitor to Sigmas 50-150 HSM OS springs to mind, or a telephoto prime in the 200-500 range with the weight reduction advantage of EF-S. (not as probable though)
> 
> Releasing one such lens would also reinforce the marketing of 7D2 as a sports/wildlife camera...



I'd suggest that Canon is deliberately yielding the lower-cost long glass market to third parties that are targeting the xxD and xxxD owners who may not realize the high demands upon glass that come with such high density sensors. 

For the camp who predicts that the 7D2 will truly be a "mid-level" camera (meaning priced near the midpoint between a rebel and a 1DX), the expression "Future of Pro APS-C will change" means that the 7D2 will be a serious sports/wildlife Body. Such a camera could be evidence of a Canon strategy for serious/pro APS-C wildlifers to either rent or own the long L glass that meets the build quality, resolution, and weather sealing requirements of such a use case, as the reach/cost advantage is already realized in the form of the crop sensor itself. 

The increased demands of the higher density sensor would be incentive enough, for those who are aware and who care, to use L glass, knowing that they are taking advantage of the best portion of the image circle as well. 

If the 7D2 really targets the pro or semi-pro wildlife segment, then in my opinion Canon may assume that the 7D2 owner has a FF body as well (such as a 6D), or aspires to one, in which case there is no incentive to invest in EF-S glass at all. Moreover, accepting the wildlife specialized use case, the "single body" 7D2 owner may in fact be content with covering the WA and UWA ranges without L build quality and weather sealing, i.e. with the fine lenses available today such as the 10-22.


----------



## CanNotYet (Feb 11, 2013)

dlleno said:


> I'd suggest that Canon is deliberately yielding the lower-cost long glass market to third parties that are targeting the xxD and xxxD owners who may not realize the high demands upon glass that come with such high density sensors.
> 
> For the camp who predicts that the 7D2 will truly be a "mid-level" camera (meaning priced near the midpoint between a rebel and a 1DX), the expression "Future of Pro APS-C will change" means that the 7D2 will be a serious sports/wildlife Body. Such a camera could be evidence of a Canon strategy for serious/pro APS-C wildlifers to either rent or own the long L glass that meets the build quality, resolution, and weather sealing requirements of such a use case, as the reach/cost advantage is already realized in the form of the crop sensor itself.
> 
> ...



You might be quite correct in that. But there ought to be some room for a EF-S telephoto lens with the inherent advantages of weight reduction from the shortcuts the lensmakers can take when designing for a smaller image circle. I am almost certain there will be something like this coming for the M-mount, and I think a conversion to EF-S would be easy, as the glass is for the same sensor size, and the difference is in the mount and flange distance as I understand it.

Anyways, a 300mm f2.8 for EF-S, at the weight as the 300 f4 or less? They could get away with a weather sealed plastic build (something like the 17-55 2.8 ) if done properly, and the price is right. (Yes, dreaming now, but...)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2013)

CanNotYet said:


> But there ought to be some room for a EF-S telephoto lens with the inherent advantages of weight reduction from the shortcuts the lensmakers can take when designing for a smaller image circle. I am almost certain there will be something like this coming for the M-mount, and I think a conversion to EF-S would be easy, as the glass is for the same sensor size, and the difference is in the mount and flange distance as I understand it.
> 
> Anyways, a 300mm f2.8 for EF-S, at the weight as the 300 f4 or less? They could get away with a weather sealed plastic build (something like the 17-55 2.8 ) if done properly, and the price is right. (Yes, dreaming now, but...)



Smell that? It's sweet-and-sour scent of optical physics and lens design waking you from your dream... 

A telephoto lens design places the 'virtual' aperture at or near the front element. So, a 300/2.8 lens is going to need _at least_ a ~107mm diameter front element to fill that aperture with light. That front element is going to be big and heavy, and need a strong frame to support it. A smaller image circle would mean a slight reduction in some of the internal elements, but won't really make the lens smaller (or cheaper). 

There's a reason we don't see EF-S telephoto lenses (except one zoom that actually starts in the normal range and has a variable aperture, meaning a different lens design) - there's just no real advantage to a smaller image circle at long focal lengths.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 11, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Smell that? It's sweet-and-sour scent of optical physics and lens design waking you from your dream...
> ...



Superzoom compact cameras tend to have small sensors. For example, the Canon SX50 has 4.3-215mm f/3.5-6.5. 215/6.5 = 33mm so it can be compact. The sensor is so small that it has an "equivalent" range of 24-1200, so the crop factor is around 5.6. With such a small sensor, high ISO performance will be poor and with such small maximum apertures, the shutter speeds will be low, which comprises IQ.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> Why do we see extreme tele reach in some "superzoom" compact cameras? Do they only accomplish this through compromised IQ, or do they gain something from the small sensors used?



Ok, take the SX50 HS, FF-equivalent of 1200mm at the long end. But, it's not a 1200mm lens - it's a 215mm lens that's f/6.5 at the long end. The small sensor gives a 215mm lens the FoV of a much longer lens used on a FF camera, but focal length is an intrinsic property of the lens. The SX50 lens isn't a true telephoto design, but even if it were, that would mean only a 33mm diameter front element.


----------



## CanNotYet (Feb 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Smell that? It's sweet-and-sour scent of optical physics and lens design waking you from your dream...
> 
> A telephoto lens design places the 'virtual' aperture at or near the front element. So, a 300/2.8 lens is going to need _at least_ a ~107mm diameter front element to fill that aperture with light. That front element is going to be big and heavy, and need a strong frame to support it. A smaller image circle would mean a slight reduction in some of the internal elements, but won't really make the lens smaller (or cheaper).
> 
> There's a reason we don't see EF-S telephoto lenses (except one zoom that actually starts in the normal range and has a variable aperture, meaning a different lens design) - there's just no real advantage to a smaller image circle at long focal lengths.



Well, I DO understand that 2.8 might be pushing it, but maybe a 4? Tamrons 70-300 is plastic built, for FF, and this would be a prime, needing less moving parts. (I think that kind of build would be at least OK)

Also, are you taking into account the size difference in sensors? 300/2.8 might be 107mm on FF, but it sure is not on the Panasonic FZ200. So, how big would it HAVE to be, if optimized for a 1.6x sensor?

Edit: Oh, I saw your answer.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> CanNotYet said:
> 
> 
> > But there ought to be some room for a EF-S telephoto lens with the inherent advantages of weight reduction from the shortcuts the lensmakers can take when designing for a smaller image circle. I am almost certain there will be something like this coming for the M-mount, and I think a conversion to EF-S would be easy, as the glass is for the same sensor size, and the difference is in the mount and flange distance as I understand it.
> ...



Take a look at http://www.getolympus.com/ca/en/lenses/slr/zuiko-lens-ed-300mm-f2-8.html

There's your 300 f2.8 lens for 4/3..... it's a little bit smaller, and therefore a little bit less expensive than what a EOS-M lens would cost you.... only $7000 plus change... it only weighs 3.2 kilos and takes a 140mm filter on the end..


----------



## dlleno (Feb 11, 2013)

I don't believe anyone serious enough to buy the 7D2 is likely to invest in long glass that won't mount up to a FF as well, even if such a lens were cost effective which (thanks) neuro has pointed out isn't really the case anyway. I suggest the target strategy for EF-S is pretty well established -- the highest quality EF-S glass is wide, and doesn't have the build quality that serious wildlifers would demand in their long glass. what that means to me is:

1. The 7D2 owner wishes to maximize the potential for sports/wildlife while investing in glass instead of a 2nd body. Such an owner will want to use/rent long L glass whenever possible, and will be happy to use EF-S glass for WA and UWA. 

2. The 7D2 owner has a FF body as well, in which case the use of long L glass is expected anyway, and EF-S glass is not desired at all

3. More generally, the xxD and xxxD users are more likely to turn to lower cost third party long glass, not realizing that the higher density sensor demands more, not less, from the lens. I see Canon yielding this market to the third parties because it does not fit their reputation of leading absolutely in the high quality long glass department.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2013)

CanNotYet said:


> Well, I DO understand that 2.8 might be pushing it, but maybe a 4? Tamrons 70-300 is plastic built, for FF, and this would be a prime, needing less moving parts. (I think that kind of build would be at least OK)
> 
> Also, are you taking into account the size difference in sensors? 300/2.8 might be 107mm on FF, but it sure is not on the Panasonic FZ200. So, how big would it HAVE to be, if optimized for a 1.6x sensor?



Tamron's 70-300mm is f/5.6 at the long end, not even f/4, much less f/2.8. 

Are you saying the Panasonic FZ200 has a 300mm lens (or the 24-600mm lens claimed)? If so, why is 4.5-108 (mm) printed on the lens? Because 24-600mm would be a lie. The lens doesn't care about the sensor behind it, focal length is an intrinsic property of the lens. Period. If you want to equate that to the FoV of a FF lens, fine - but putting an iPhone 5 (8x crop factor) behind a 40mm f/2.8 'pancake' lens doesn't mean you magically have a 320mm f/2.8 supertele lens. 

Bottom line, a 300mm f/2.8 lens optimized for a 1.6x sensor would be.....the same size as a 300mm f/2.8 lens for FF. 

Now, if by 'optimized' you mean 'would give the same FoV as 300mm on FF' then a 200mm f/2.8 lens would do that (but 200/2.8 on APS-C it would give the DoF of 320mm f/4.5 on FF). Similarly, the 108mm f/2.8 lens on the Panasonic FZ200 gives you the FoV of 600mm on FF, and the DoF of about f/15.


----------



## CanNotYet (Feb 11, 2013)

Yes, I saw your answer that you posted while I was writing my post. I have to admit I did not know how the size of the front lens element was determined. You learn something new every day. 

Now I understand why there is no EF-S telephoto lenses. 

But I still would like a Canon EF-S 50-150 2.8 IS USM.  (58mm filter size would do)
I have been thinking of getting the Sigma, but I want Canon colors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2013)

CanNotYet said:


> But I still would like a Canon EF-S 50-150 2.8 IS USM.



Now _that's_ an EF-S lens that would make sense!


----------



## iP337 (Feb 11, 2013)

Ah yes the legendary 50-150/2.8, I was waiting for the OS version for so long, I remember it quietly announced but was it ever released?

Actually I would really like some more EF-S primes; like an 85/1.4 to better compete with the 135/2, perhaps a 24/2 and the return of the 200/1.8 in EF-S (or is that going to be too big and expensive against the current 200/2 EF?).

Or why not go really crazy and hope for a 50-150/2.8 with built in 2x (fine maybe 1.4x) extender!  lol. I think that might kill off the 100-400/4.5-5.6L though, but who's really buying this other than APS-C wildlife and sports photographers anyway.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> CanNotYet said:
> 
> 
> > But I still would like a Canon EF-S 50-150 2.8 IS USM.
> ...


A EF lens like that might get my vote as well.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 12, 2013)

dlleno said:


> CanNotYet said:
> 
> 
> > I agree on the high end EF-S lenses. The most blatant omission at the moment is in the telephoto range. A competitor to Sigmas 50-150 HSM OS springs to mind, or a telephoto prime in the 200-500 range with the weight reduction advantage of EF-S. (not as probable though)
> ...



An excellent well written post, with valid points. However, if there is no incentive to own EF-S lenses, then why use the 1.6x sensor at all? I say the 1.6x sensor is an anvil around Canon's neck, especially regarding a birding or sports body for pros or semi-pros. For that matter, why even use 1.3x? Why not something in between? And I disagree, based on the one I rented, that the Canon 10-22 is a "fine" lens. It was severely soft in the outer 2/3 of the image, had poor contrast and dull color. The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 absolutely murders it, and for less money...coupled with a more robust build. The Tokina I rented was slightly better than the one I bought a year later, though. But the rental house agreed with my thoughts on the Canon 10-22. They've had and tested a lot of them, so they would know better than me. If you somehow wound up with a magical copy that was sharp-ish towards the edges, then more power to ya...I hope you shot thousands of great images with it...but it's atypical of production. Even closed to f/9, the problem was helped some, but still very obvious.


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 12, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > CanNotYet said:
> ...



I used to have a Canon 10-22 and felt the same way about the softness in the edges. 

I use my 7d for ski/snowboard work and the only lenses I use on it are a 70-200 MkII, 200 f/2 and 400 f/2.8 II. I don't own any glass for the 7D that isn't twice the cost I paid for it but the body continues to impress. I honestly feel if I were to get a new body STRICTLY for sports/wildlife it would have to be an APS-C as I am so used to it now at long distances. It felt weird when my 7D was at Canon and I had to shoot sports with my Mk3~ AF rocks but I felt "short" and had to crop a lot more then I usually would.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 12, 2013)

RMC33, I am passing out with envy at your lens collection !!! :'(


----------



## dlleno (Feb 12, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> An excellent well written post, with valid points. However, if there is no incentive to own EF-S lenses, then why use the 1.6x sensor at all? I say the 1.6x sensor is an anvil around Canon's neck, especially regarding a birding or sports body for pros or semi-pros. For that matter, why even use 1.3x? Why not something in between?



An angle worth considering, to be sure. I'd never really thought of a crop DLSR body as an incentive to or vehicle through which Canon can sell more EF-S lenses. I view the crop DSLRs as a way to extend the customer base of the whole Canon system with cheap kit lenses that people might upgrade in the future. the EOS-M market is not something I'm very close to either, so that segment may be a way to expand the market of EF-S glass for all I know. I just having been paying attention there. For some reason I just see the bulk of EF-S staying around the low to medium IQ level and low build quality levels, with the exception of a few more expensive lenses to satisfiy the W and UWA needs of serious single-body users. thats probably where the EF-S higher margins are, come to think of it -- look at the price of the 17-55 compared to the 24-105L and your head starts to shake. 

As for the Anvil (good one!) the Canon strategy appears to remain firm around FF bodies and long L glass for the sports pros, and an advanced crop body using 'not-as long' L glass for the 'not so pro'. With advances in sensor technology assumed to come, it will be interesting to watch the real IQ differences play out between sensors of different sizes and pixel densities. for example, Will the crop body loose its lustre as a "long reach" flagship crop compared to the cropped FF images of the same FOV? is the "advanced crop" here to stay or is the 7D2 the last engine to leave the station?


----------



## Lawliet (Feb 12, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> It was severely soft in the outer 2/3 of the image, had poor contrast and dull color.



Mine had similar problems OOC - turned out to be a CA related problem. I.e. the color seams cancelled each other out, but the brightness information got smeared.
OTOH its still behind the 16-35 at similar aperture, and lets not think about the TS-Es or the current 24-70s.


----------



## CanNotYet (Feb 12, 2013)

iP337 said:


> Ah yes the legendary 50-150/2.8, I was waiting for the OS version for so long, I remember it quietly announced but was it ever released?
> 
> Actually I would really like some more EF-S primes; like an 85/1.4 to better compete with the 135/2, perhaps a 24/2 and the return of the 200/1.8 in EF-S (or is that going to be too big and expensive against the current 200/2 EF?).
> 
> Or why not go really crazy and hope for a 50-150/2.8 with built in 2x (fine maybe 1.4x) extender!  lol. I think that might kill off the 100-400/4.5-5.6L though, but who's really buying this other than APS-C wildlife and sports photographers anyway.


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/853533-REG/Sigma_692_101_50_150mm_f_2_8_EX_DC.html


----------



## marinien (Feb 12, 2013)

CanNotYet said:


> iP337 said:
> 
> 
> > Ah yes the legendary 50-150/2.8, I was waiting for the OS version for so long, I remember it quietly announced but was it ever released?
> ...


Filter Thread Front: 77 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.4 x 7.8" (8.64 x 19.81 cm)
Weight 2.95 lb (1.34 kg)

The 50-150 non-OS was relatively small and light. This one, given the size and weight, I do not see the point of making it for crop sensor only .


----------



## iP337 (Feb 12, 2013)

marinien said:


> CanNotYet said:
> 
> 
> > iP337 said:
> ...



Price ain't bad, but I already got a 70-200/2.8 

Good point about its size and weight, I'd rather stick to the 70-200.


----------



## insanitybeard (Feb 12, 2013)

Following on from the good quality EF-S lenses discussion, I would like to see a decent compact ultra wide angle crop sensor prime. I doubt it will happen but the only Canon option is the 10-22 zoom, which I own, and like others here have said, especially used on a pixel dense sensor like the 7D, the resolution does drop off and become mushy towards the corners- especially when files are viewed close to 100%. Don't get me wrong, I think the 10-22 is a fine lens but may be due an update to keep it viable on the higher res sensors. A compact ultra wide crop lens would make a nice alternative- other than the horrendously expensive 14L which is mostly wasted on crop anyway Canon have no primes you could call truly ultra wide for crop. The recent IS primes (24,28 and 35) have gone some way to increase the choice of modern Canon standard-ish or moderately wide primes for crop and FF but are still expensive at the present time.


----------



## CanNotYet (Feb 12, 2013)

marinien said:


> The 50-150 non-OS was relatively small and light. This one, given the size and weight, I do not see the point of making it for crop sensor only .


I quite agree. I am looking at a used 50-150 HSM II, and it is a lot smaller and more inconspicuous. Price is about half of the OS version (new) in the used market. When you pass the 2.5 pound mark, I think you could go EF. 
Too bad it has got focus issues...


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 13, 2013)

I have the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, and it's quite a bit sharper than the Canon 10-22. That said, there is simply no way anyone will ever make a wide zoom lens for a crop camera, that could ever make use of more pixels than 18MP. Just not going to happen. It might be theoretically possible, but production tolerances would still keep it from working on most copies. Putting a wide lens on a crop camera, is about like putting tiny spare tires on a range rover and then taking it to a mud bog.


----------



## greger (Feb 14, 2013)

70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C Will Change! I read and re read the interview with Masaya Maeda and wonder why I am the only one who sees No 7Dll in the Future because the Future is Full Frame. To get the 1.6 crop it will have to be done on the computer probably using Photoshop. To get the extra reach with a lens it'll have to be with a 1.4 or 2X Extender. This will be possible because the FF sensor will have the resolution to allow this kind of Manipulation of the image. This means that the 70D will almost be what everyone wants in a 7Dll. Canon will do what it wants knowing that as long as the cameras produce quality images that people will buy them. The 7D was the camera that pried open the wallets of 40D users. Canon is going to have to come out in the next 3 years with a camera that pries open the wallets of 7D owners. Masaya says that will be FF. I am hoping for 5Dlll like camera with a $1,500.00 to $2,000.00 price tag.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2013)

greger said:


> 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C Will Change! I read and re read the interview with Masaya Maeda and wonder why I am the only one who sees No 7Dll in the Future because the Future is Full Frame.
> 
> I am hoping for 5Dlll like camera with a $1,500.00 to $2,000.00 price tag.



So…you're hoping for Canon to release a 5D Mark III-like camera at a price point that is cheaper than the 6D? That seems pretty unlikely. "Future" is a long way off in this scenario, IMO.


----------



## insanitybeard (Feb 14, 2013)

greger said:


> 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C Will Change! I read and re read the interview with Masaya Maeda and wonder why I am the only one who sees No 7Dll in the Future because the Future is Full Frame. To get the 1.6 crop it will have to be done on the computer probably using Photoshop. To get the extra reach with a lens it'll have to be with a 1.4 or 2X Extender. This will be possible because the FF sensor will have the resolution to allow this kind of Manipulation of the image. This means that the 70D will almost be what everyone wants in a 7Dll. Canon will do what it wants knowing that as long as the cameras produce quality images that people will buy them. The 7D was the camera that pried open the wallets of 40D users. Canon is going to have to come out in the next 3 years with a camera that pries open the wallets of 7D owners. Masaya says that will be FF. I am hoping for 5Dlll like camera with a $1,500.00 to $2,000.00 price tag.



Well, depending on who you believe Canon are starting to lag behind a little in the image quality department in SOME areas. Being that the 7D has been a very popular camera for hobbyists as well as pros, it seems to me it would be quite a gamble on Canon's part to force current 7D owners to spend a lot more money on a FF replacement. The 6D cannot be called a FF replacement to the 7D, I think that the 5D MK3 fits that bill and in the UK at the present time costs over double the 7D. Would Canon risk losing that segment of the market? It doesn't quite make sense to me.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 14, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> greger said:
> 
> 
> > 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C Will Change! I read and re read the interview with Masaya Maeda and wonder why I am the only one who sees No 7Dll in the Future because the Future is Full Frame. To get the 1.6 crop it will have to be done on the computer probably using Photoshop. To get the extra reach with a lens it'll have to be with a 1.4 or 2X Extender. This will be possible because the FF sensor will have the resolution to allow this kind of Manipulation of the image. This means that the 70D will almost be what everyone wants in a 7Dll. Canon will do what it wants knowing that as long as the cameras produce quality images that people will buy them. The 7D was the camera that pried open the wallets of 40D users. Canon is going to have to come out in the next 3 years with a camera that pries open the wallets of 7D owners. Masaya says that will be FF. I am hoping for 5Dlll like camera with a $1,500.00 to $2,000.00 price tag.
> ...



What if he really means that the future of APS-C will change because FF is on the way out  We can read whatever we want into a short clip from an interview conducted in another language.... This is a rumour site, it is speculation.... nothing more, nothing less. He did not say the future of APS-C is dead, he said it will change.

The APS-C cameras sell very well. In general, smaller cameras sell very well. Look at micro 4/3.... you can even say that mirrorless cameras sell very well.

I think that the future of APS-C is mirrorless. What happens if focusing can be done very accuratley and quickly on the sensor? What happens when EVF's evolve to the point where delay is minimal and you can start modifying the image presented on them to enhance the view beyond what glass and mirrors can do? Those are the two big hurdles that you need to get past to have a great mirrorless camera. Add in new sensor technology for greater iq and/or ISO performance and you would have a kick-ass camera.... and these three developements are getting close....

What if the 7D2 is a mirrorless camera that beats all the specs of the 7? That would truly change the future of APS-C.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 14, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> What if the 7D2 is a mirrorless camera that beats all the specs of the 7? That would truly change the future of APS-C.



Neuro and all of you, excellent points. 

Don, I would find this last statement to maybe be the most surprising of all the speculation. A 7D replacement with sensor based AF that outperforms the 7D in every way? So Canon is going to go from not really using this technology at all, to introducing a new product using it, which surpasses Sony's efforts like they are standing still? If that did happen, most would complain about the loss of a mirror and true viewfinder. But everyone would tremble in fear of Canon's advancement out of nowhere. I would bet heavily this won't be happening. I.e., if such a camera intended as replacement for the 7D gets released soon, or this year...it most certainly will _not_ outperform the current (and now very old) 7D's autofocus ability.

A mirrorless 7D replacement? I don't see it. A mirrorless EOS-M replacement or upgrade? Of course. EOS M replacement still using the same, 5 year old sensor? Most assuredly.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 14, 2013)

Imagine trying to follow the kind of action that the 7D thrives on with an EVF ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 14, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > What if the 7D2 is a mirrorless camera that beats all the specs of the 7? That would truly change the future of APS-C.
> ...



I can see it happening..... but not soon. Who knows what prompted the "future will change" comment? It could be something radical.... not an incremental improvement. Everyone expects pixel densities to climb, ISO performance to improve, noise reduction to improve, and manufacturing methods keep getting better and ic's get made with narrower and narrow processes. None of this should cause the "future is going to change" comment, it's got to be something different.

Right now there are some darn fine mirrorless cameras out there that beat the 7D for almost everything except focus speed/accuracy and decent glass to hang off of the camera.... It could happen.... I'd bet not soon, but as long as we are wildly speculating based on a tiny shred of evidence, why not make it a really wild guess?


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> greger said:
> 
> 
> > 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C Will Change! I read and re read the interview with Masaya Maeda and wonder why I am the only one who sees No 7Dll in the Future because the Future is Full Frame.
> ...



no there will be a 5Dmk3 like camera in that price range...


when the 5Dmk4 comes out the 5Dmk3 will be in that range


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 16, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Right now there are some darn fine mirrorless cameras out there that beat the 7D for almost everything except focus speed/accuracy and decent glass to hang off of the camera.... It could happen.... I'd bet not soon, but as long as we are wildly speculating based on a tiny shred of evidence, why not make it a really wild guess?



Why not make a really wild guess? Well your guess is wilder than my expressed wish that they abandon 1.6x and go 1.47x, or whatever the image circle will tolerate. And yet I got told "oh that won't happen, that can't happen, you're wrong". I wasn't even predicting it would happen, only suggesting that it _should_ happen. Because the sensor needs to be as big as possible, and still work with the aps-c image circle. I mentioned 1.47x, because I feel Nikon's image circle isn't all that tight on the corners of the sensor. If it were, there would already be a noticable tad of corner vignetting, and there isn't. 

I'm talking about a sensor that is probably less than 0.70mm bigger, along the diagonal, than Nikon-Sony's. So I say it _is_ possible. For that matter, why do we need to keep the 3:2 aspect? Why not go 7:5 aspect? 7:5 is by far the best compromise of all the sensor aspects...4:3 is too square, doesn't use enough of the image circle's width at wide angle. Or best of all, why not a multi-aspect sensor, that truly makes use of the image circle?

I'm not sure the future includes sensor-based autofocus that is equal or superior to separate AF-sensor-phase based. If the future was heading in that direction, we would have seen some element of it on the 1Dx or D4. Whatever Sony does with it, I can't say. I know they're using a transparent mirror for their top aps-c camera, even now, are they not? Does the future include transparent mirrors? You're suggesting those will get leapfrogged in favor of on-imaging-sensor-based phase AF, correct? In the far future, sure I think it's possible. In 5 or 6 years maybe? 

Lacking focus speed accuracy and "decent glass to hang off the camera", are kind of like lacking electricity...But are you referring to a Sony body, or a M4/3 body? (Surely you're not referring to a mirrorless Nikon body??) Because I don't see any M4/3 body matching the 7D currently. What beats the 7D now, sensor wise, are the D7000 and D5200, and perhaps a Sony body, even possibly the Nex 7?


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 16, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Because I don't see any M4/3 body matching the 7D currently. What beats the 7D now, sensor wise, are the D7000 and D5200, and perhaps a Sony body, even possibly the Nex 7?


Add the OMD-EM-5 into the pile. Despite the smaller sensor, it beats the Canon APS-C cameras for IQ and low light performance..... not by very much, but it does. One of my co-workers brought one in and we experimented with a 7D, 60D, and the EM-5... the EM-5 shot better in low light and about the same in good light as the two Canons. BTW, both Canons focused better.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 16, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> So Canon is going to go from not really using this technology at all, to introducing a new product using it, which surpasses Sony's efforts like they are standing still?



Actually, the bulk of Canon cameras are mirrorless..... only the DSLR's are not. Mirrorless focusing is tried and true..... not as good as with the seperate sensor on the DSLR's, but much faster and more accurate than it used to be.

What if they do come up with a method for mirrorless focusing that is as good as the seperate sensor and mirrors of a DSLR? Would we revolt and say "but that's not the way it used to be", or would we say "that works better"? I remember the good old days when people said that digital would never be as good as film...... and now you can do so much more with digital than you ever dreamed of with film.

The mirror is a holdout from the days of film, when you had to look through the lens to see what you were pointed at and how to focus. If you can get rid of the mirror you get rid of a lot of mechanical components and motors, and you get rid of mirror shake. I'm sure that they are working on it....


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 16, 2013)

Don, I agree, the bulk of their cameras are mirrorless, because they're compact cameras.

However, I happen to like looking through a mirror and pentaprism. Not that this is a fair comparison, but are electronic viewfinders going to replace the roof prism in high end binoculars too? Last year I compared a lot of them, they're all a little different. I didn't buy any of the "alpha class", but I did compare them. One of the ones I bought was a lot cheaper, and actually had more contrast than a Swarovski...however it was the 2009 Swaro, and not the new one...they didn't have any new ones. 

Regarding the Olympus, I do find that interesting. It is the same size sensor as 4/3, the "2x crop" with 4:3 aspect, right? Like, at what ISO settings did it pull ahead of the 7D, etc? I'm certainly not trying to say the 7D is some kind of mountain king...I don't even own one myself. However, if the price for a new, non-refurb body somehow falls to the $700 range, I might succumb to buying one...regardless of whatever other FF body I decide on (I need to sell at least one pair of bino's, and a small telescope first).

I admit, the new Olympus body looks cool. I once considered trying to study industrial design, back before all my dreams were crushed, and half my life got wasted away. Also wanted to design "the next Porsche". I dreamed pretty big as a kid. They did see my design...I sent it to them. This was 1989...I digress again. I guess I'm just citing an example of using imagination. My dreams weren't very realistic, but I took the chance anyway.

Oh, and regarding other unrealistic dreams...I mentioned in another thread, about my dream lens. Some kind of really fast zoom, like a 60-115 f/0.8. Maybe it's not even possible to build something like that without severe aberrations and vignetting...but what if it were possible? Of course, it would be expensive. I just...would absolutely love to shoot shallow DOF wildlife at sunset with something like that. A companion lens could be a fixed focal length, 165 mm f/1.0...


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 16, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Don, I agree, the bulk of their cameras are mirrorless, because they're compact cameras.
> 
> However, I happen to like looking through a mirror and pentaprism. Not that this is a fair comparison, but are electronic viewfinders going to replace the roof prism in high end binoculars too? Last year I compared a lot of them, they're all a little different. I didn't buy any of the "alpha class", but I did compare them. One of the ones I bought was a lot cheaper, and actually had more contrast than a Swarovski...however it was the 2009 Swaro, and not the new one...they didn't have any new ones.



Interesting.... I never thought about binoculars.... mine are completely optical.... no electronics.... but I could really see how things like IS could shake up the world (no pun intended). I have a 15 power pair and you need to use a tripod or a tree to see things at night without too much shaking. In the daytime the eyes can compensate, but not at night.

As to EVF's.... I haven't seen one that I like as much as an optical viewfinder... but I have not seen the good ones. I really don't know how they stand in comparison


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 16, 2013)

I apologize to anyone else, I guess we have gotten a tad off topic.

Don...You mean the Olympus doesn't use an EVF, or do you mean the one it has "isn't a good one"? I should know this already, sorry.

Interesting you mention IS with binoculars, Canon and a few others have had IS binoculars for years. I've not tried them, although I have read they are superb. _ No electronic viewfinder needed._ One of them is a 15x50, I believe. Priced over $1k. Still cheaper than Swarovski.

The ones I wound up buying are all roof prism, an 8x32, 8.5 x 45, and a 12 x 60. The largest of these was made in Japan, the others were made in China by competing companies...one a Vortex, the other a Vanguard. I also have had a mid 1990's Celestron 15x80 for a long time, which I love, but they are only practical for tripod use.


----------



## jrista (Feb 16, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> The mirror is a holdout from the days of film, when you had to look through the lens to see what you were pointed at and how to focus. If you can get rid of the mirror you get rid of a lot of mechanical components and motors, and you get rid of mirror shake. I'm sure that they are working on it....



Except for the fact that optical viewfinders are still vastly superior to electronic viewfinders. I already wrote this up in another thread here, but basically the BARE MINIMUM pixel density you need for an EVF to be crystal clear (no pixelation) is 5000ppi, with over 12,000ppi necessary to support people with 20/10 vision (such as myself.) Dynamic range is also lacking. Low-light performance is highly dependent on the image sensor, which is no where near as good as the human eye in low light. I can spend a few minutes letting my eyes adjust to the dark and see a billion stars in the sky...an EVF? Maybe a few...the brightest of the bright...riddled by noise from the sensor as it's jacked up to ISO 25600.

A mirror is an essential factor in getting the best viewfinder humanly possible, utilizing the best low-light sensor we can get our hands on....the human eye. I'll hold onto my DSLR with its clunky mirror box until the end of time, when I'm a desiccated husk of paper-thin dried flesh encasing a tomb of dust, before I move to an EVF (or maybe possibly, when image sensors have reached 100% Q.E. and are capable of a couple million ISO...yet even then, my eyes are a hell of a lot clearer with far more dynamic range than an image sensor could ever hope to be at ISO 1,638,400).


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 16, 2013)

Jrista, interesting points. However, I'm pretty sure there aren't 1 billion stars visible to your naked eye. If you don't count galaxies (and you really can't), the max individual stars someone with 20/20 vision can see, only number in the thousands...not millions, or billions. Since you claim you have 20/10 vision, I'm sure you can see a few more than someone with 20/20. However, you're still not going to see anything dimmer than 6th magnitude...or that's what the experts say anyway.

You can see a lot of stars with some big binoculars...especially if your pupil can dllate larger than 5mm (which I'm sure you'll claim yours can dilate to 10mm, haha). If they can dilate to 6 or 7mm, then try some 11x70 giant binoculars in a place like New Mexico, and see what all you can see then (I've not been there yet, and also not sure how big mine can dilate).

Given your claimed great vision, I can only deduce that you haven't spent many hours in front of a computer monitor. If you have, then expect your great vision to begin to deteriorate very soon.

As for the couple million ISO, at this rate, sensors will have the option in 3 to 5 years, I would say. Certainly they will be 1 million, if not by the next pro camera body cycle...then by the next after that. Not that it means they will have good mimamic grange or color depth at that amount of gain, of course. And I'm sure Nikon will make a camera body with terrible performance at that high gain, but at ISO 100, look out!

Btw, I expect a 2Dx in time for the 2016 Olympics in Rio...so that means it will get released by fall or Christmas, 2015, to the "pros"...and probably to everyone else, only after the Olympics are over. The Nikon D5 will be available a year before that...you know, because Canon are behind the times, and can only mimic the innovations Nikon do first. So that means a Nikon D5 with an ISO 500,000 or 1 million, by the end of 2014 or beginning of 2015. It will be 18 or 20 MP, and will deliver files with a nice, green tinted color that can't ever be removed.


----------



## jrista (Feb 16, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Jrista, interesting points. However, I'm pretty sure there aren't 1 billion stars visible to your naked eye. If you don't count galaxies (and you really can't), the max individual stars someone with 20/20 vision can see, only number in the thousands...not millions, or billions. Since you claim you have 20/10 vision, I'm sure you can see a few more than someone with 20/20. However, you're still not going to see anything dimmer than 6th magnitude...or that's what the experts say anyway.



Haha. You have heard of hyperbole, no? Embellishment? Artistic license? Of course you can't see a billion stars, not individually. You can see about 6000 or so with the unaided eye, and as far as I know even someone with 20/10 vision is limited to seeing stars around magnitude 6. I was trying to emphasize my point...with, yes, a little embellishment for flare. 



CarlTN said:


> Given your claimed great vision, I can only deduce that you haven't spent many hours in front of a computer monitor. If you have, then expect your great vision to begin to deteriorate very soon.



My vision without glasses or contacts is somewhat poor as I am near sighted. However with corrective lenses, according to my last eye doctor visit only a month ago, I have at least 20/10 vision. I'm a software engineer, I've written software for a couple decades spending at least 8-10 hours a day in front of a computer, and have fiddled with computers since I was eight. My vision went rather nearsighted when I was pretty young, but has stayed the same for quite some time...it has not changed for years, and I do not suspect it will change for many more years. I do keep my face as far from the screen as I can, though...my standard posture at work is low-riding, kicked back in my chair, keyboard and mouse at the edge of the desk...monitors pushed back to the wall of my cubicle. I have a good 4 feet or so between my eyes and the screen at all times...keeps the vision good. 

Also, according to my eye doctor, most people of younger to middle age who have a mild to moderate need for corrective lenses tend to have better than 20/20 vision when wearing their lenses, as the procedures used by ophthalmologist identify the best level of correction are intended to find the BEST lenses for each individuals eyes. (I've been asked to read lines smaller than necessary for 20/20 vision for years, and that is standard practice at the eye clinic I've visited for ears, which sees thousands of patients a year.) Outside of those with fairly severe problems or extreme near or far sightedness, most people who see an ophthalmologist (vs. a simple optometrist) should have 20/15 to 20/8 vision. It also seems that despite mild problems like high floater counts (mine is around 50 per eye, while average for my age is less than 30 and normal would be only a few), I still am able to read the 20/10 vision line perfectly well. So...I would not say it is particularly unusual for people in today's medically advanced world to have better than 20/20 vision...many have vision as good as 20/8 with their glasses on!



CarlTN said:


> As for the couple million ISO, at this rate, sensors will have the option in 3 to 5 years, I would say. Certainly they will be 1 million, if not by the next pro camera body cycle...then by the next after that. Not that it means they will have good mimamic grange or color depth at that amount of gain, of course. And I'm sure Nikon will make a camera body with terrible performance at that high gain, but at ISO 100, look out!



Oh, the million ISO thing was another bit of hyperbole. 8) I guess it is not necessarily "impossible", however it is likely improbable (at least in any useful form in the kinds of light levels we might actually NEED it for...)

We are currently at a *native *ISO of 51200 thanks to the 1D X. ISO settings up to 204800, regardless of brand, are "artificial", in the sense that they are only a digital boost above and beyond the maximum native setting. For the purposes of ISO, those that use H1 and H2 etc. are "fake", and really don't count. You can achieve the same thing by boosting on your own in post with RAW, and probably get better results than the camera. ISO 51200 is approximately two stops higher than the last native ISO setting of 12800, however it is not quite as good from an IQ standpoint as ISO 12800 was (more on why in a moment). There is a finite limit to how far we can really push ISO, simply because the amount of light that will actually reach a sensor in a given very small, finite amount of time is limited. 

ISO is not really a boost to sensitivity, it is simply a reduction in the white point...it instructs the sensor to register a lesser amount of charge in each pixel as "maximum saturation", or the purest color for each pixel. The only way to truly boost sensitivity is by improving the "photon keeper rate". For any photon incident on a pixel, one of three things can happen: it reaches the photodiode and frees and electron (increases the charge in the pixel), it is converted to heat, or it reflects. So long as we continue to use bayer-type sensors with color filters over each pixel, we'll have an intrinsic maximum quantum efficiency (photon keeper rate). Probably around 40% or so depending on how strong or weak the CFA is. A move to color splitters rather than color filters could certainly increase Q.E., maybe to 80% or more, as instead of filtering light (converting it to heat or reflecting it), light of inappropriate frequency for a given pixel is simply redirected to the appropriate neighboring pixels...this preserving it. Theoretically, we could utilize nearly 100% of the light incident on any pixel with color splitters. Use of low-noise electronics or efficient hardware noise reduction like the Sony Exmor sensor allows further improvement. To really push beyond 80% Q.E. you need the electronics to be extremely cold...around -80°C is the sweet spot. At that level, noise from dark current (the bulk of read noise) is 200 times less than it is at room temperature...that would be a read noise level on the order of 0.01e-, where as today the average read noise level is around 3e-...three electrons worth of charge. Now, making a consumer-grade or even professional-grade camera that has less native noise than a Sony Exmor AND is capable of being kept at -80°C is no mean feat...it would be ONE HELL of a feat...and it still wouldn't actully reach 100% Q.E. (asymptotic relationships and all that.) We generally call such thermally cooled, low-noise sensors scientific-grade...they are usually CCD and often have Q.E. between 80-90%, and devices with such sensors cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Assuming an equal exposure value and sensors with equal quantum efficiency (i.e. equal fab tech at the same pixel size), a photo taken at ISO 12800 is going to have four times as much light on the sensor as a photo taken at ISO 51200. Because there is four times less light, at the same Q.E., the ISO 51200 photo will look approximately four times as noisy. The 1D X has a quantum efficiency of about 47%, so if we assume a near-perfect sensor can achieve about 94%, then technically speaking we could reduce the amount of noise in an ISO 51200 photo by a factor of two...which is still twice as noisy as the ISO 12800 photo. However, again assuming the same exposure value, ISO 102400 is going to look twice as noisy, ISO 204800 will look twice as noisy again, and so on. The difference between ISO 51200 and ISO 1683400 is a whopping 25x the amount of light needed to produce the desired exposure, or five stops. At ISO 51200 you have approximately 7 stops of dynamic range, which would leave you at a piddly 2 stops of dynamic range by ISO 1683400, and five orders of magnitude more noise at the same exposure value.

Using the 1D X as a basis, with a Q.E. of 47% it has a maximum saturation of 170e- (electrons) at ISO 51200. Assuming 94% Q.E., that would be a max. sat. of 340e-, and for 100% Q.E. a max. sat. of 362e-. Since 100% Q.E. means you are efficiently converting every single photon into an electron, that means 362 photons are captured per pixel. At ISO 1638400, you would capture a mere 11.3 photons per pixel before it saturated! While you might be able to make a photo with such a minimal amount of light, it would by nature have to be lacking in detail as the available photons would be so distributed as to cause 16x as much noise as at ISO 51200 on the 1D X today. Color fidelity would also be decimated with so little physical information representing color. 

For all intents and purposes, an ISO 1638400 photo would be monochrome, rather soft, and extremely grainy. For one, I do not believe we will reach a native ISO 1683400 by the next generation of DSLRs, probably not even within the next two generations (assuming the current release cycles are maintained, that would mean we don't see ISO in the millions for at least EIGHT YEARS.) Assuming anyone can keep improving high ISO performance much beyond where the 1D X is now, especially with smaller pixels, one would have to assume the IQ at those ISOs would barely be as good as what we get today with ISO 51200, and then only if quantum efficiency is doubled (which is within the realm of possibility, although at what price point I couldn't say.)


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 16, 2013)

Jrista, your post is entirely too long, but I endeavored to read it. Interesting most of the time. I appreciate you taking the effort to school me! One thing I can promise you…if I wrote a post this long, no one would read it!!

Haha, hyperbole? I just wanted to bring you back down to earth a bit.

4 feet from the monitor eh? What is it, a 40 inch? Lucky you. I’ve not had an eye exam in 9 years…my corrected vision isn’t remotely as good as it was 20 years ago…then it was 20/15. I didn’t say it was all that unusual to have corrected 20/10, although given your years in front of a computer, I still find it a bit odd. I sit closer to my monitor, and don’t use glasses. I don’t program, however…nor do I usually spend more than 6 hours per day at a computer…sometimes far less. To watch tv and drive, I use glasses. To use my camera, it can be a bear to decide whether or not to use them…especially if I need to look at the live view display a lot. And why all the detail about vision, are you also an eye doctor of some kind? Interesting about the floaters. Mine look like Krusty the Klown…and they mock me!

_“ISO is not really a boost to sensitivity, it is simply a reduction in the white point...it instructs the sensor to register a lesser amount of charge in each pixel as "maximum saturation", or the purest color for each pixel.”_

Interesting, and how do you know this? If it’s not gain, it shouldn’t be referred to as gain. But it often is. 

_“So long as we continue to use bayer-type sensors with color filters over each pixel, we'll have an intrinsic maximum quantum efficiency (photon keeper rate).”_

A good argument for the stacked color technique?

_“Probably around 40% or so depending on how strong or weak the CFA is.”_

CFA stands for what? I tried googling, there are approximately 6 quadrillion different meanings.

_“A move to color splitters rather than color filters could certainly increase Q.E., maybe to 80% or more, as instead of filtering light (converting it to heat or reflecting it), light of inappropriate frequency for a given pixel is simply redirected to the appropriate neighboring pixels...this preserving it. Theoretically, we could utilize nearly 100% of the light incident on any pixel with color splitters.”_

Or we could simply stack the color diodes? And for that matter, we could eventually incorporate a 4th color, and record each at 16 bits?

_“To really push beyond 80% Q.E. you need the electronics to be extremely cold...around -80°C is the sweet spot”_

QE stands for Quantative Efficiency? Or Quantative Easing?  Ahh, I missed it the first time, _quantum efficiency_.

_“At that level, noise from dark current (the bulk of read noise) is 200 times less than it is at room temperature...that would be a read noise level on the order of 0.01e-, where as today the average read noise level is around 3e-...three electrons worth of charge.”_

I assume the best and largest telescopes employ something similar to this with their imagers? I know the amateur astronomy imagers are cooled CCD, but not sure what type of imager the big time scientists use.

_“…and devices with such sensors cost tens of thousands of dollars.”_

That’s chump change to a few on here, I bet. 

_“At ISO 51200 you have approximately 7 stops of dynamic range, which would leave you at a piddly 2 stops of dynamic range by ISO 1683400, and five orders of magnitude more noise at the same exposure value.”_

Quite interesting. Kind of sounds like how older aps-c cameras like mine, get described. 2 stops! But by your train of thought here, it almost seems like there wouldn’t have been the leap even to ISO 200,000, and yet it’s happened…while the photosite area got decreased at the same time.

_“Since 100% Q.E. means you are efficiently converting every single photon into an electron, that means 362 photons are captured per pixel. At ISO 1638400, you would capture a mere 11.3 photons per pixel before it saturated! While you might be able to make a photo with such a minimal amount of light, it would by nature have to be lacking in detail as the available photons would be so distributed as to cause 16x as much noise as at ISO 51200 on the 1D X today. Color fidelity would also be decimated with so little physical information representing color.”_

Photosite area makes the most difference here. To achieve a really high usable ISO, obviously there would be a reduction in resolution, and the pixel array would be summed. Nobody expects to get a sharp 24x36 print at ISO 1 million…and probably nobody would expect anything other than monochrome, to boot. Would still be interesting to use at times.

_“For all intents and purposes, an ISO 1638400 photo would be monochrome, rather soft, and extremely grainy”._ I just kind of said that.

_“For one, I do not believe we will reach a native ISO 1683400 by the next generation of DSLRs, probably not even within the next two generations (assuming the current release cycles are maintained, that would mean we don't see ISO in the millions for at least EIGHT YEARS.) Assuming anyone can keep improving high ISO performance much beyond where the 1D X is now, especially with smaller pixels, one would have to assume the IQ at those ISOs would barely be as good as what we get today with ISO 51200, and then only if quantum efficiency is doubled (which is within the realm of possibility, although at what price point I couldn't say.)”_

Your points make a lot of sense. I suppose you could be right…but I did say up to 5 years…you’re saying 8 years. Not that much difference. Obviously I lack your knowledge on the subject, I was just applying observation and intuition.

There are those who think DSLR cameras will fade away, mechanical shutters will fade away, and certainly reflex mirror/prisms will fade away. I do see pro camera bodies getting lighter in weight, but not much smaller in physical size. It's really my goal to buy the replacement for the 1Dx. I hope I can afford one by then. 

Obviously the main, and only true meaningful improvement, would be an increase of…gimamic strange…available at the medium to higher ISO settings, such as from 1000 to 25,600…or perhaps up to 32,000. So that means a native ISO of perhaps up to 80 or 100,000…Again, of course, Nikon’s tympanic lagrange will exceed 40 stops at ISO 20, and will drop to 5 at the high ISO’s.


----------



## jrista (Feb 16, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> _“ISO is not really a boost to sensitivity, it is simply a reduction in the white point...it instructs the sensor to register a lesser amount of charge in each pixel as "maximum saturation", or the purest color for each pixel.”_
> 
> Interesting, and how do you know this? If it’s not gain, it shouldn’t be referred to as gain. But it often is.



It is gain...but gain is not sensitivity. Gain is simply the amplification of a signal. In the context of an image sensor, the native strength of the signal is caused by photons releasing electrons in each pixel's photodiode. By boosting gain, you are only changing how the original signal is treated....not increasing the amount of photons actually detected by the sensor. The only way to increase the fundamental "sensitivity" of an electronic image sensor is by improving the ratio of photon to electron conversions...or, in other words, by increasing quantum efficiency. For every stop of increase in ISO, you effectively reduce the maximum amount of electrons allowed for the maximum charge of each pixel. 

If you start out with say the ~90,000 electrons of charge (e-) in the 1D X at ISO 100 with a Q.E. of ~50%, then it takes ~180,000 photons to _fully saturate_ a pixel. At ISO 200, your maximum saturation is ~45,000e- or ~90,000 photons, however you are also boosting gain so 45,000e- is read out as the same maximum pixel value as 90,000e- was at ISO 100. At ISO 400, your maximum saturation is ~22,500e- or ~45,000 photons, and a 22,500e- charge is read out as the same maximum pixel value as 90,000e- at ISO 100. So on and so forth. By ISO 6400 you are down to 1,406e-, by ISO 12800 you are down to ~703e-, ISO 25600 to ~352e-, and ISO 51200 to ~175e-. As you can see, at ISO 51200 your actual maximum signal strength is about 0.2% what it could be at ISO 100. Applying gain to such a low "real" signal can't actually increase "sensitivity"...it only amplifies the power of the signal that exists, which increases all the noise present in that very low signal to noise ratio.

Now, if you double the Q.E. from 50% to 100%, you have 180,000e- at ISO 100 and ~352e- at ISO 51200. The ratio between those two is the same, however ISO 51200 is now actually twice as "sensitive" to light as it was before now that you are converting 100% of the incident photons, so it should produce images that are about half as noisy. Thing is, once you get to 100% Q.E. there is nothing more you can do to improve sensitivity outside of increasing pixel area, as a larger pixel is capable of holding a higher maximum charge. That could either be achieved by reducing megapixel count in the same form factor, or by increasing the form factor while maintaining pixel size. 



CarlTN said:


> _“So long as we continue to use bayer-type sensors with color filters over each pixel, we'll have an intrinsic maximum quantum efficiency (photon keeper rate).”_
> 
> A good argument for the stacked color technique?



Actually, I think the color splitting technique developed by Panasonic is the best way to maximize Q.E. Stacked pixels actually won't necessarily improve Q.E. Each _color _is still getting roughly the same amount of light that it got before with a bayer-type sensor, as the silicon itself in a Foveon-type array acts like the filter. The benefit of Foveon is really a resolution benefit...you utilize the entire surface area of the sensor to maximize resolution, rather than distributing the resolution of different colors as in a bayer design. 

With a color splitter, you preserve 100% of the incoming light at every pixel...no light is filtered in any way.



CarlTN said:


> _“Probably around 40% or so depending on how strong or weak the CFA is.”_
> 
> CFA stands for what? I tried googling, there are approximately 6 quadrillion different meanings.



Color Filter Array. It is what gives bayer-type sensors their ability to sense color. It allows for extremely high pixel densities, at the cost of some color resolution.



CarlTN said:


> _“A move to color splitters rather than color filters could certainly increase Q.E., maybe to 80% or more, as instead of filtering light (converting it to heat or reflecting it), light of inappropriate frequency for a given pixel is simply redirected to the appropriate neighboring pixels...this preserving it. Theoretically, we could utilize nearly 100% of the light incident on any pixel with color splitters.”_
> 
> Or we could simply stack the color diodes? And for that matter, we could eventually incorporate a 4th color, and record each at 16 bits?



Stacking, as I mentioned before, is still filtering...and any given "pixel" is unlikely to preserver 100% of the light. A stacked design improves color resolution, eliminates color moire (the bane of bayer-type sensors), and might be slightly more sensitive to light than a bayer design. To my knowledge, only a color splitting design is actually explicitly designed to preserve 100% of the incident light that is not previously converted to heat or reflected.



CarlTN said:


> _“At that level, noise from dark current (the bulk of read noise) is 200 times less than it is at room temperature...that would be a read noise level on the order of 0.01e-, where as today the average read noise level is around 3e-...three electrons worth of charge.”_
> 
> I assume the best and largest telescopes employ something similar to this with their imagers? I know the amateur astronomy imagers are cooled CCD, but not sure what type of imager the big time scientists use.
> 
> ...



CCD is usually used in scientific devices. Cooled CCD in devices where noise can interfere with the scientific study at hand.



CarlTN said:


> _“At ISO 51200 you have approximately 7 stops of dynamic range, which would leave you at a piddly 2 stops of dynamic range by ISO 1683400, and five orders of magnitude more noise at the same exposure value.”_
> 
> Quite interesting. Kind of sounds like how older aps-c cameras like mine, get described. 2 stops! But by your train of thought here, it almost seems like there wouldn’t have been the leap even to ISO 200,000, and yet it’s happened…while the photosite area got decreased at the same time.



No, ISO 204800 is an artificial ISO setting. It is what we call a digital boost over the highest native ISO setting. You could, for all intents and purposes, replicate ISO 204800 in post with RAW if you wanted to. Just underexpose a scene at the highest native ISO setting by the required number of stops...say ISO 25600 on the 5D III. In post, lift that exposure by THREE STOPS, and you have done exactly what the camera does to get ISO 204800. ISO 104200 and 204800 on all cameras is "fake". Outside of the 1D X, ISO 51200 on all other cameras is also "fake". Outside of the 5D III and 6D, ISO 25600 on all other cameras is "fake". Some other cameras support native ISO up to 12800 (Nikon's D3 line, D4, and a few other models, a couple Sony cameras, etc.), but for the most part, ISO 12800 is also "fake". ISO 6400 is generally the highest "native" or "real" ISO setting on the majority of cameras outside of those listed.

So, no...we have _not_ actually achieved ISO 204800. It's called an "expanded" mode for a reason.  It might be possible to get to ISO 204800 within the next generation, which should roll out approximately 3 years or so from now. Assuming we maintain the gains we have been getting so far, we might see ISO 833,600 7 years from now or so. But even then, we are really starting to push the limits. Assuming a hypothetical ISO 800k sensor of the future was still 18mp, with 100% Q.E. The 1D X today has a full well capacity of 90367e- with 47% Q.E. At 100% Q.E., the full well capacity would be 192,270e-. ISO 800k would have a maximum saturation point @ 23.5e-, ISO 400k @ 47e-, SO 200k @ 94e-. ISO 200k might look almost as good as ISO 51200 on the 1D X today assuming read noise is greatly reduced (or about a stop worse than ISO 51200 today if read noise is NOT improved). ISO 800k would look about two stops worse than ISO 51200 does today. If ISO 1.6 million was actually attempted, it would have that maximum saturation of 11e-, and look about 8x as bad as ISO 51200 does today.

On top of a native ISO 800k...we then might get some additional "fake" levels of ISO. H1 would be that ISO 1638400, and H2 would be ISO 3267800! But...they would still be fake...you could still achieve the same thing, and probably do a better job, by boosting an ISO 800k exposure by two stops in post. 



CarlTN said:


> _“Since 100% Q.E. means you are efficiently converting every single photon into an electron, that means 362 photons are captured per pixel. At ISO 1638400, you would capture a mere 11.3 photons per pixel before it saturated! While you might be able to make a photo with such a minimal amount of light, it would by nature have to be lacking in detail as the available photons would be so distributed as to cause 16x as much noise as at ISO 51200 on the 1D X today. Color fidelity would also be decimated with so little physical information representing color.”_
> 
> Photosite area makes the most difference here. To achieve a really high usable ISO, obviously there would be a reduction in resolution, and the pixel array would be summed. Nobody expects to get a sharp 24x36 print at ISO 1 million…and probably nobody would expect anything other than monochrome, to boot. Would still be interesting to use at times.



Aye. I touched on this before, but once you have achieved the maximum quantum efficiency possible with the fabrication design of the sensor (i.e. eliminated as many sources of reflection or conversion to heat, such that as many photons reach the photodiode and release an electron as possible). Once your fabrication process is technologically advanced enough to eliminate (or nearly eliminate) photon loss, the only other thing one can do to increase IQ at high ISO would be to increase pixel area. That would indeed either require a reduction in megapixels, or an increase in form factor. 

For the most part, I don't think the vast majority of photographers will need or want ISO 800k, 1.6million, 3.3million, etc. There will probably certainly be a group who always wants and could use more, but for most photographers I think will be satisfied with much less. Most photographers may already be quite satisfied with ISO 51200, and doubling real sensor sensitivity with ideal Q.E. (over 90%) would make ISO 51200 that much more usable, maybe even printable?



CarlTN said:


> _“For all intents and purposes, an ISO 1638400 photo would be monochrome, rather soft, and extremely grainy”._ I just kind of said that.
> 
> _“For one, I do not believe we will reach a native ISO 1683400 by the next generation of DSLRs, probably not even within the next two generations (assuming the current release cycles are maintained, that would mean we don't see ISO in the millions for at least EIGHT YEARS.) Assuming anyone can keep improving high ISO performance much beyond where the 1D X is now, especially with smaller pixels, one would have to assume the IQ at those ISOs would barely be as good as what we get today with ISO 51200, and then only if quantum efficiency is doubled (which is within the realm of possibility, although at what price point I couldn't say.)”_
> 
> There are those who think DSLR cameras will fade away, mechanical shutters will fade away, and certainly reflex mirror/prisms will fade away. I do see pro camera bodies getting lighter in weight, but not much smaller in physical size. It's really my goal to buy the replacement for the 1Dx. I hope I can afford one by then.



I think people may be over-estimating the physical weight of the parts involved in the mirror/mirror box and the pentaprism. The savings there is probably only a few grams. The vast bulk of the weight in a DSLR-style body is the body itself (metal alloy, in the case of professional-grade cameras that have to take a beating, as well as the layers of plastic and rubber grip), the dense electronics packed into the body, and the batteries (which are quite heavy in and of themselves, even for a mere 2000mAh or so). The relative weight of the mirror itself and the pentaprism is fairly minor, and I do not believe removing them while maintaining the overall size and ergonomics of current DSLRs (which is one of their greatest strengths...they fit the hand extremely well, are easy to grip, and at least in the case of Canon the controls are almost blissfully placed.) I don't see the mirror, nor the fundamental design of a DSLR (half-silvered mirror with AF unit underneath the mirror box and OVF+metering sensor overhead) going away or changing any time soon.

Mirrorless designs, while compelling in that they can make things really small without much or any loss in IQ, are really only highly compelling for consumers. I do not think mirrorless offers what professionals, or high-end enthusiasts and hobbyists, need. There are significant benefits to an OVF, to the large size and handholdability of a DSLR, and to the weight balance offered by the *heavier *DSLR bodies when using telephoto and supertelephoto lenses. Have you seen the photos of EF 800mm L lenses tacked onto the front of an EOS-M? The DSLR is not going anywhere, and won't be going anywhere nor morph into something else any time soon. I'd say not within the next two generations at least. Alternative product lines will probably be introduced, in addition to existing DSLR lines. Those alternative products will probably get one or two high end versions that cater more to some pros. But the DSLR won't be replaced by mirrorless...mirrorless will simply be another option. 

And remember...once we maximize the Q.E. gains at the technological level...the only other option is to increase pixel area. That is far easier done with a FF sensor than a µ4/3 sensor, and even easier with a MFD sensor. I see a diversification of options (along the level of diversity that is largely already present in the MFD market...with all the interchangeable backs having different resolutions and different pixel sizes and all that), not a conversion of options.


----------



## jrista (Feb 16, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> > _“At ISO 51200 you have approximately 7 stops of dynamic range, which would leave you at a piddly 2 stops of dynamic range by ISO 1683400, and five orders of magnitude more noise at the same exposure value.”_
> >
> > Quite interesting. Kind of sounds like how older aps-c cameras like mine, get described. 2 stops! But by your train of thought here, it almost seems like there wouldn’t have been the leap even to ISO 200,000, and yet it’s happened…while the photosite area got decreased at the same time.
> 
> ...



Photosite area does not directly affect Q.E., however it does have an impact on full well capacity. Double the size of the pixel, and you get *four times* the full well capacity (i.e. a 4µm pixel might get about 50,000e- at 100% Q.E., an 8µm pixel should get around 200,000e- at 100% Q.E., if not more). For those two hypothetical sensors, the 4µm sensor would have a maximum saturation of ~98e- at ISO 51200, while the 8µm sensor would have a maximum saturation of ~390e- at ISO 51200. The 8µm sensor is about four times as sensitive to light as the 4µm sensor at the same Q.E., and as such should always produce better IQ at any ISO setting.



hjulenissen said:


> > _“For one, I do not believe we will reach a native ISO 1683400 by the next generation of DSLRs, probably not even within the next two generations (assuming the current release cycles are maintained, that would mean we don't see ISO in the millions for at least EIGHT YEARS.) Assuming anyone can keep improving high ISO performance much beyond where the 1D X is now, especially with smaller pixels, one would have to assume the IQ at those ISOs would barely be as good as what we get today with ISO 51200, and then only if quantum efficiency is doubled (which is within the realm of possibility, although at what price point I couldn't say.)”_
> >
> > Your points make a lot of sense. I suppose you could be right…but I did say up to 5 years…you’re saying 8 years. Not that much difference. Obviously I lack your knowledge on the subject, I was just applying observation and intuition.
> 
> ...



I was actually describing that in the context of future tech, with lower read noise and near-100% Q.E., could potentially give us as much as two stops of DR at that level of ISO. That future tech already included color splitting, maximizing the efficiency of microlenses, thermal cooling to -80°C, etc. There is indeed a physical wall...and I don't think we could do much better than a couple stops of DR at such a high ISO. Which is why I think it would only really be effective as a "monochrome" setting...with so little light, color fidelity would take a huge hit unless you had MONSTROUS pixels and a humongous full well capacity. With an 3.3mp FF sensor with 16µm pixels at 100% Q.E., you might get around 800,000e- FWC, which would mean ISO 51200 max sat of 1563e-...which should have the IQ of ISO 6400 in the 1D X today (which is actually quite amazingly good, if you've seen any ISO 6400 shots from the 1D X!) Not really sure how useful or applicable a 3.3mp sensor might be these days...I guess if you are only publish online at low resolutions, and NEVER crop, it would be the greatest low-light sensor ever...but 3.3mp just seems lacking. ;P


----------



## eyeland (Feb 17, 2013)

As much as I hate to divert attention away from the above posts (which filled in some serious gaps in my knowledge) I thought I'd mention that, over at the dark side, based on the addition of a Nikon DSLR SKU and an upcoming press conference, the admin speculates that the D7000 replacement will be announced in the coming week. 
If that is true, I guess it will "compel" Canon to react?


----------



## jrista (Feb 17, 2013)

eyeland said:


> As much as I hate to divert attention away from the above posts (which filled in some serious gaps in my knowledge) I thought I'd mention that, over at the dark side, based on the addition of a Nikon DSLR SKU and an upcoming press conference, the admin speculates that the D7000 replacement will be announced in the coming week.
> If that is true, I guess it will "compel" Canon to react?



If Canon does "react", my guess is it would only be on paper. I think Canon will hold out as long as they need to in order to produce a quality product.


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 17, 2013)

jrista said:


> eyeland said:
> 
> 
> > As much as I hate to divert attention away from the above posts (which filled in some serious gaps in my knowledge) I thought I'd mention that, over at the dark side, based on the addition of a Nikon DSLR SKU and an upcoming press conference, the admin speculates that the D7000 replacement will be announced in the coming week.
> ...



I would hope so.


----------



## dlleno (Feb 17, 2013)

jrista said:


> eyeland said:
> 
> 
> > As much as I hate to divert attention away from the above posts (which filled in some serious gaps in my knowledge) I thought I'd mention that, over at the dark side, based on the addition of a Nikon DSLR SKU and an upcoming press conference, the admin speculates that the D7000 replacement will be announced in the coming week.
> ...



+1, with the important distinction that "as long as they need to" is not the same as "as long as possible". We may be seeing, as you imply over on the big megapixel thread, the results of a company that invests conservatively. that is, perhaps economics drove them not to invest heavily and take risks in maturing their 180nm process. Accordingly, their decisions are the best to keep the company healthy, not to win every last spec war. ergo, a 5D mark iii that soundly met customers needs with essentially incremental improvements to legacy sensor technology. 

without the converse being somewhat evident over on the Nikon side (with news of plummeting stock prices, influenced by their debt structure) I wouldn't have otherwise suggested this, but it appears that the D800 may have been a very risky investment, perhaps for both Sony and Nikon. The decision certainly made some waves, but I'm not so sure that Canon is trembling in their boots; their conservative nature just compels a more measured approach to economics and corporate health.


----------



## jrista (Feb 18, 2013)

dlleno said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > eyeland said:
> ...



My thoughts exactly.  +1


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 19, 2013)

Jrista, excellent points. I should have known "color filter array", it's just that your post was so long, my brain had reduced its frames per second.

I didn't necessarily mean that pro cameras would need to eliminate the pentaprism to reduce weight...I was speaking generally about each of those aspects of cameras, that many people think will go away someday. However, the larger body required to encompass the pentaprism, does indeed add weight. Not that I dislike pentaprisms, I do. As for the batteries...well in a pro camera they are three 18650 rechargable lithium ion...and each one to my hand, feels not much heavier than a AA (I recently bought several to use in some bright LED flashlights, and these are 3000 mah). Each are 3.7 volts...

If Panasonic color splitting technique is so superior, why haven't the other companies developed their own versions? Isn't this technique too new to really predict it will be the future of sensor design?

Hjulennison, I disagree on the in-effectiveness of the Foveon sensor. I used to own one...and if I worked within its limitations, it provided a very wide, very saturated color palette, that was enjoyable to further manipulate in PS. I also disagree that pixel photosite size/area is not a factor, because it just is. The bigger the area, the more photons fall on that area.


----------



## jrista (Feb 19, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> If Panasonic color splitting technique is so superior, why haven't the other companies developed their own versions? Isn't this technique too new to really predict it will be the future of sensor design?



It is superior in that it does not absorb or reflect light...it splits it, and one way or another, ALL of the light reaches a photodiode somewhere. Filtration is kind of a double-edged sword. Electronic noise increases with heat (which is why supercooling electronics to -80°C nearly eliminates electronic noise), and filtration generally causes photons to be absorbed into the molecules of the filter...that increases the kinetic vibration of the atoms of those molecules, which is what heat is. So, not only are you literally losing light (which reduces Q.E.), which causes more noise because of a lesser signal strength...you are also increasing heat, which exacerbates the dark current noise present in the circuit.

If, instead of absorbing the energy of light and converting it into heat, we simply split that light and redirected it to the appropriate pixels...we would increase the signal strength and eliminate heat, doubling the benefit. 

As for whether this technology will replace CFA's, I cannot say. Some people would say there are thousands of ways of doing the same thing. There may be a thousand ways of building image sensors, but as for each specific concept that is a part of the fabrication of image sensors, I think there are fewer ways. Depending on whether or not a company like Canon can develop their own patents for color splitting that do not infringe upon Panasonic's patents for the same thing, and depending on what kind of judgments are made about the validity of such patents, can affect how broadly the technology is applied in the short term. Patents are explicitly designed to benefit the inventor, allowing them to recoup the costs invested in researching and developing new technologies, and possibly make some profit from the intellectual property, before they become broadly available to competitors.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 19, 2013)

Jrista, again, excellent points, a wealth of information! Much obliged. I feel like I'm deep underground, in James Bond's Q Branch camera development facility. Or perhaps inside a giant supertele lens that doubles as the hadron collider...too far? Ok, ok... 

The way you're describing it, it sounds like there is no downside. And also, is it even possible that Canon would attempt to pursue the technique now anyway? Their reputation with sensor innovation, is kind of like the speed with which a cure for bubonic plague was found, for the people afflicted back in 500 A.D. Time wasn't on their side! Or it's kind of like, painting a piece of glass with asphalt and some phosphorous...sticking it down inside an old gutted out 1D Mark2, and hoping for the best...


----------



## that1guyy (Feb 19, 2013)

So, back on topic here...

Where is the 70D? I remember reading a rumor that it will come before March. March is almost here and stlil no concrete sign. The Nikon D7000 is supposed to come out next week. I hope the 70D is able to complete with a new sensor.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 19, 2013)

that1guyy said:


> So, back on topic here...
> 
> Where is the 70D? I remember reading a rumor that it will come before March. March is almost here and stlil no concrete sign. The Nikon D7000 is supposed to come out next week. I hope the 70D is able to complete with a new sensor.



+ won

We actually were on topic, discussing the sensor.


----------



## jrista (Feb 19, 2013)

that1guyy said:


> So, back on topic here...
> 
> Where is the 70D? I remember reading a rumor that it will come before March. March is almost here and stlil no concrete sign. The Nikon D7000 is supposed to come out next week. I hope the 70D is able to complete with a new sensor.



Well, sensor was kind of the discussion at hand. If I was to predict, with the best of my knowledge, what Canon will come out with in a new APS-C sensor (which, BTW, may not find its way into the 70D...it seems like the 7D would be the better target for new sensor tech), here is what I think:

- 180nm fabrication process
- Copper interlink
- Lightpipe technology
- Per-column amplifiers and column-wise readout
- Power-dieconnect readout logic, which should nearly eliminate noise from dark current (there is a patent for this)
- Higher Q.E., maybe 55% or so (Better IQ, less noise despite an increase in pixel density...not as good as 5D III)
- OFF-DIE ADC (I've yet to see any patents from Canon involving on-die ADC of any kind)

If the ADC is still off-die, then I suspect that we will still have banding noise. I'd offer that with an improved process and higher Q.E., banding should be much less visible. That said, the 7D has one of the lowest read noise levels of all the current Canon sensors, at around 8 electrons @ ISO 100. With a better process, especially if they apply the patent that involves disconnecting the power source from charge-holding capacitors during readout, dark current could be nearly eliminated, which could lead to very low on-die noise. Once the analog signal is shipped off sensor, I really can't say what may happen. The 1D X has very high read noise (38 electrons @ ISO 100), and I suspect a lot of that has to do with the high frequency ADC's on the DIGIC 5+ chips. If the 7D has low on-die noise around 1-2 electrons, it is entirely possible off-die ADC could increase it, even above the 8 electrons we have now on the original 7D. In which case, I wouldn't expect much from low ISO on the 7D II.

In the case of the 70D, I suspect it would use a lower-clocked DIGIC chip, and probably only one. Both of those factors would probably lead to less banding. That would make the 70D more viable for all-around photography at a middle-ground FPS of 4-5. Use of the 70D for landscapes would probably be better than a higher clocked, higher frame rate 7D II. Its IQ would probably be similar to the 6D, and the IQ difference with the 7D II might be similar to the difference between the 6D and 5D III (which, from a purely sensor standpoint, leaves the edge to the 6D...same rough amount of luminance noise, but much less chroma noise.)


----------



## TheSuede (Feb 20, 2013)

Some strange stuff in these last two pages. I don't even know where to start.



jrista said:


> We are currently at a *native *ISO of 51200 thanks to the 1D X. ISO settings up to 204800, regardless of brand, are "artificial", in the sense that they are only a digital boost above and beyond the maximum native setting.


No. The actual native max ISO gain in a 1Dx is below 10,000. Anything and everything above that is digital amplification. This is still pretty impressive, since that is a roughly 100:1 ratio of gain between ISO100 and ISO10,000 - adjustable gains tend to have more inherent noise the larger the range they are supposed to cover is. Canon does NOT indicate "real" ISO's by using real numbers in stead of "Hi" and "Lo" - they indicate the cameras intended usage range. The number is just a number anyway, something that shows in a EXIF or an LCD window.
Actually limiting analog gain to ISO10,000 is a good thing - since taking the analog amplification any higher would actually hurt image performance - increase noise! - so no shame there. I'm actually quite impressed by the noise reduction they apply (but less impressed by the fact that they deny it in official blurbs). As far as I can model it it's a kind of bandwidth energy preserving color NR that works kind of like the Foveon NR system. It is however easily traceable by the noise spread from one channel to another. I have no problem with if they implement it in the "lower cameras" like the 7D replacement.



jrista said:


> There is a finite limit to how far we can really push ISO, simply because the amount of light that will actually reach a sensor in a given very small, finite amount of time is limited.


Yes - ISO1,000,000 would mean about 18 electrons per pixel in a 1Dx (still with a bayer filter) with a perfect "100%" QE, at mid gray in the image. That's a S/N ratio of about 1:4, or -2ev - quite useless. One can usually say that the Bayer interpolation of detail gives up at about -2Ev, with most algorithms. But given true hardware-level binning.... You can get reasonable 0.5MP images out of the 135 format sensors at ISO1,000,000. With a separation-style or good quality multi-layer solution you might get a usable 1MP image.



jrista said:


> ISO is not really a boost to sensitivity, it is simply a reduction in the white point...it instructs the sensor to register a lesser amount of charge in each pixel as "maximum saturation", or the purest color for each pixel.


Well, about. It is an instruction to the ISO amplifier, that sits as an "adaptation gain" between the sensor (pixel) Ve output and the AD-converter's V/ADU input. The sensor in itself is a fixed point, the only thing you can adjust there is pre-load voltages - something typically not done in commercial sensors.



jrista said:


> Assuming an equal exposure value and sensors with equal quantum efficiency (i.e. equal fab tech at the same pixel size), a photo taken at ISO 12800 is going to have four times as much light on the sensor as a photo taken at ISO 51200. Because there is four times less light, at the same Q.E., the ISO 51200 photo will look approximately four times as noisy.


No. Increasing absolute exposure by 4x will decrease noise at any given point sufficiently above the electronic noise floor by 2x - not by 4x.

What happens is - taking 18% gray as a point example - that:
18% gray at some ISO has lets say a 400e- signal.
This gives a Poisson of sqrt(400) = 20 = 1:20 = 4.3Ev SNR.

Quadrupling (ISO/4) the base signal gives:
4*400e- = 1600e- of signal.
Pd of 1600e- is sqrt(1600) = 40 = 1:40 = 5.3Ev SNR

-exactly one stop less noise than the four times weaker signal, also at 18% gray.

What happens BELOW that is another matter - you've also increased your DR between 18% gray and the limiting electronic noise floor by 1Ev. If you could get to 3Ev below 18% gray with good detail at the first signal level, quadrupling the signal will give you 4 usable Ev's below 18% gray (if the AD converter and ISO amplifier noise is low enough - this is what's missing in the Canon implementations today, why they have 1.5-2Ev less DR at base ISO).



jrista said:


> Using the 1D X as a basis, with a Q.E. of 47% it has a maximum saturation of 170e- (electrons) at ISO 51200. Assuming 94% Q.E., that would be a max. sat. of 340e-, and for 100% Q.E. a max. sat. of 362e-. Since 100% Q.E. means you are efficiently converting every single photon into an electron, that means 362 photons are captured per pixel. At ISO 1638400, you would capture a mere 11.3 photons per pixel before it saturated!


Here, you're missing out on a very basic fact about sensor properties, and how they're reported.
The QE of a sensor is reported AS IS in the construction it is applied.
This means that the 1Dx has got a QE of 47% - this means it converts 47% of the energy already filtered by the CFA. CFA filter average area efficiency is typically around 35-40%. Real incident photon energy > e- conversion rate is then about 0.35*0.47 = 0.16 = 16%... A sensor construction without color filtration would have three times the amount of photons available for conversion.
As I mentioned - the Bayer interpolation actually takes away about 2Ev of usable image detail in the end result when all factors are included. A sensor not dependent on filtration - that absorbs all the light you give it - can have more than five times higher e- per photometric exposure level than what the 1Dx has (assuming 80% QE with no color filtration, 60% within the visible band is not unusual in scientific sensors at room temprature)

The Panasonic patent (that just like all Sony Exmor patents is an implementation patent, not a base patent...) still suffers from some interpolation losses in the color interpolation necessary in the post-processing, even though it uses all available light. AND the usability is severely limited by the angle losses, effective T-stop of a F1.4 lens would be about about T2.5, even if the lens in itself was a perfect T1.4 - so the real gains are only there for F2.8 and smaller aperture lenses. Which kind of takes away a lot of the large-sensor usability. So the 100% light usage sensor is still very far away as you say...


----------



## jrista (Feb 20, 2013)

TheSuede said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > We are currently at a *native *ISO of 51200 thanks to the 1D X. ISO settings up to 204800, regardless of brand, are "artificial", in the sense that they are only a digital boost above and beyond the maximum native setting.
> ...



Last I heard, Canon used two analog amplifications...one at the pixel, which topped out at ISO 1600, one "downstream", but before the ADC (or maybe as part of the ADC itself, never saw a patent), and then, for "expanded" ISO settings, it used digital amplification. In the case of the 1D X, I do not know where the per-pixel amplifiers cut off...it may still be ISO 1600, however I guess I find that unlikely given how good ISO 3200 and 6400 look. If we assume ISO 12800 is the highest the per-pixel amplifiers are capable of, ISO 25600 and 51200 would use the downstream amplifier, leaving H1 and H2 as the only digitally amplified settings. 

That jives with past Canon sensors. The 7D is great up to 1600, so-so up to 6400, and terrible at 12800. 



TheSuede said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > There is a finite limit to how far we can really push ISO, simply because the amount of light that will actually reach a sensor in a given very small, finite amount of time is limited.
> ...



Sure, you could probably "bin", and improve the quality. I guess if you wanted both an excellent low-ISO camera AND the worlds best low-light camera all in one, binning down to half a megapixel would be great. But binning increases the complexity if the sensor, and probably doesn't do as good a job as lower resolution sensor with gigantic pixels.

If someone is really interested in low-light photography...such as indoor events, night sky photography, street photography at night, etc. I think the best option is a real low resolution sensor that just strait up packs the photons into every pixel.



TheSuede said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ISO is not really a boost to sensitivity, it is simply a reduction in the white point...it instructs the sensor to register a lesser amount of charge in each pixel as "maximum saturation", or the purest color for each pixel.
> ...



Heh, sure. I was trying to keep lower-lower-level electronics talk out of it, as not everyone here understands things at that level. I might as well put up an electronic diagram and tell everyone to have fun reading it.  Trying to dumb down gain, voltages, etc. just means I end up writing ten times as many words to explain the same thing in a way the majority of people can understand.

For all intents and purposes, ISO settings above 100 simply instructs the camera to read out the sensor with a lower white point. Simplistic, maybe, but all voltages and gain and ADU's aside, that's effectively what's happening.



TheSuede said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming an equal exposure value and sensors with equal quantum efficiency (i.e. equal fab tech at the same pixel size), a photo taken at ISO 12800 is going to have four times as much light on the sensor as a photo taken at ISO 51200. Because there is four times less light, at the same Q.E., the ISO 51200 photo will look approximately four times as noisy.
> ...



You are actually quite correct here. I wrote "four times" far too many times in that...blog...

And yes, that is indeed Canon's problem in a nutshell....amplifier noise and ADC noise are really what kill their DR at low ISO. Based on what I've read about Exmor, the use of analog CDS circuits (and non-uniform response inherent to such a design) is also a prime source of vertical banding noise, so it is really the amplifiers, CDS, and ADC that contribute to Canon's low-ISO noise.



TheSuede said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Using the 1D X as a basis, with a Q.E. of 47% it has a maximum saturation of 170e- (electrons) at ISO 51200. Assuming 94% Q.E., that would be a max. sat. of 340e-, and for 100% Q.E. a max. sat. of 362e-. Since 100% Q.E. means you are efficiently converting every single photon into an electron, that means 362 photons are captured per pixel. At ISO 1638400, you would capture a mere 11.3 photons per pixel before it saturated!
> ...



Hmm, I thought the Q.E. reported by the likes of DXO was "as measured", not "as is". I generally use Sensorgen.info for basic statistics like that, which I believe is based on DXO test results. I'm curious how DXO derives their Q.E., if it is, as you say, what the electronics and photodiode itself (below all the filtration and microlenses and whatnot) is capable of preserving. If it is indeed true that the Q.E. numbers reported on Sensorgen.info (which would really be as reported by DXO) are POST-filtration, then we really do indeed have a LONG way to go before truly preserving ~100% of the light that reaches the sensor through the lens.

To that end, I believe significantly cooling the sensor can greatly help improve the efficiency of the silicon underneath the CFA. I doubt we'll get to -80°C in anything we could buy over the counter, but even moderate cooling to keep the sensor below ambient could improve results, and increase Q.E. as you've described it. There was a rumor that Canon was prototyping such technology as well, which is why I have my hopes up about one of the forthcoming sensor designs from Canon...be it the 7D II or big MP, I think we could see some nice improvements in Q.E. from Canon.



TheSuede said:


> As I mentioned - the Bayer interpolation actually takes away about 2Ev of usable image detail in the end result when all factors are included. A sensor not dependent on filtration - that absorbs all the light you give it - can have more than five times higher e- per photometric exposure level than what the 1Dx has (assuming 80% QE with no color filtration, 60% within the visible band is not unusual in scientific sensors at room temprature)



Aye, completely agree here. Bayer sensors literally throw away unconscionable volumes of light! The problem is, despite the losses from the CFA and interpolation, they still produce better results than the alternatives as of yet. I look forward to seeing more unconventional designs on the market in either Nikon or Canon cameras...something like the Pentax color splitter design in a Canon DSLR would make my day. 



TheSuede said:


> The Panasonic patent (that just like all Sony Exmor patents is an implementation patent, not a base patent...) still suffers from some interpolation losses in the color interpolation necessary in the post-processing, even though it uses all available light. AND the usability is severely limited by the angle losses, effective T-stop of a F1.4 lens would be about about T2.5, even if the lens in itself was a perfect T1.4 - so the real gains are only there for F2.8 and smaller aperture lenses. Which kind of takes away a lot of the large-sensor usability. So the 100% light usage sensor is still very far away as you say...



True, there is still interpolation, however I am not sure it suffers "the same" losses as a classic bayer design. At least as I understand the Panasonic patent, there are really only two pixel colors, which would produce a much more even grid of W-R and W+R pixels. The grid layout for either one of those has the same spatial resolution as the green pixels of a bayer array, which has twice the spatial resolution of red and blue pixels. I'd take a more evenly distributed W-R/W+R grid than a bayer array any day. Throw in some efficient cooling to reduce dark current to nearly nil, and I think such a design would perform considerably better than a bayer design.

Regarding the "angle losses", I'm not really sure what you are referring to there...so I'm not sure how to respond.


----------



## jrista (Feb 21, 2013)

Looks like the thread has been "reset" to my last post from a day ago. Guess we can get back on topic. 

(BTW, just posting this so everyone who was following this thread knows it was updated...as the recent deletions did not update it in my "replies" page.)


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 21, 2013)

jrista said:


> In the case of the 70D, I suspect it would use a lower-clocked DIGIC chip, and probably only one. Both of those factors would probably lead to less banding. That would make the 70D more viable for all-around photography at a middle-ground FPS of 4-5. Use of the 70D for landscapes would probably be better than a higher clocked, higher frame rate 7D II. Its IQ would probably be similar to the 6D, and the IQ difference with the 7D II might be similar to the difference between the 6D and 5D III (which, from a purely sensor standpoint, leaves the edge to the 6D...same rough amount of luminance noise, but much less chroma noise.)



Astutely observed and pondered. How do you explain the fact that the measured sensor resolution drops off so dramatically at higher ISO on the 6D, as compared to the 5D3? I have read this is so, have you? The 6D supposedly loses resolution quickly above ISO 6400, while the 5D3 doesn't see a big drop until above ISO 12,800. Of course these are higher ISO questions, but I like to shoot at higher when I can. I also like to shoot at lower ISO in good light (or longer tripod exposures), when possible...for landscape, etc. 

I suppose whatever the sensor or overall processing is doing to have lower noise at low ISO on the 6D, could also be what begins to hurt it at higher ISO? No doubt this is intentional.


----------



## jrista (Feb 21, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > In the case of the 70D, I suspect it would use a lower-clocked DIGIC chip, and probably only one. Both of those factors would probably lead to less banding. That would make the 70D more viable for all-around photography at a middle-ground FPS of 4-5. Use of the 70D for landscapes would probably be better than a higher clocked, higher frame rate 7D II. Its IQ would probably be similar to the 6D, and the IQ difference with the 7D II might be similar to the difference between the 6D and 5D III (which, from a purely sensor standpoint, leaves the edge to the 6D...same rough amount of luminance noise, but much less chroma noise.)
> ...



Hmm, not sure what you mean by the sensor resolution drops off. The sensor has a fixed spatial resolution, nothing can really change that. At a higher ISO, you have less light to work with, so the structure of detail may not end up completely defined...that could lead to apparent softening (well, it does...that is why noisy images from very high ISO settings tend to lack detail...not enough light to build up the structure of that detail as anything more than partial detail and noise.) However, I would expect the 6D and 5D III to perform similarly in this area. If you have any links to reviews that demonstrate teh effect, I'd like to take a look.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 22, 2013)

The review was in the latest issue of Popular Photography. I'm sure the noise is the factor in their resolution test (not sure if it's an "MTF 50", like Lensrentals uses to test lenses...but surely it involves some kind of test chart or target...of course that would mean the lens' sharpness gets factored in, which seems like that would be undesirable.)

Here is their test of the 5D3 from July 2012. I can't find the 6D, it's possible it's not on the website because it's in the current print issue, and they don't want it on the website yet...I don't know.

http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2012/07/camera-test-canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-dslr

Btw, I was just being sarcastic in that other thread, your pics always look great to me...I guess I just cannot abide anyone who refuses to shoot above ISO 1000...it's like they're a girly man or something! Hahaha...


----------

