# Is the Canon EOS R7 the next camera to be announced? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 1, 2022)

> A source with a pretty solid record has chimed in about coming Canon EOS R cameras based on my report last week about 3 new RF mount cameras (Not including Cinema EOS) that the Canon EOS R7 is likely the next camera to be announced.
> The announcement I have been told could come as early as March of this year.
> No specifications or other details are currently known, but I’m hoping more will come in the next little while.
> Please remember announcement dates for products can be affected by the current manufacturing challenges.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 1, 2022)

Honestly, the only real crop-dedicated lens a R7 needs is something like a APS-C RF-S 15-50mm F/2.8. Anything longer and you might as well just get the RF 100-400 or RF 600, both of which really don't cost all that much to begin with.

Would be nice to see Canon release a 200-600 or 200-500 sorta lens for $1500, though. That would be a great middleground between the RF 600/800, 100-400, and 100-500.


----------



## elias723 (Feb 1, 2022)

Canon no invirtio en lentes aspc Ef-S ni en los Ef-m asi que esta vez tampoco será diferente


----------



## cgc (Feb 1, 2022)

I bet (it's free ) it will be the hybrid APS-C. That way it would follow the tradition (5D -> R5, 6D -> R6, 7D -> R7)...

In addition, the (I assume fake) photo at CanonRumors shows a crop sensor 

BTW... what are the chances of an hybrid (EVF+OVF) R1?


----------



## Andy Westwood (Feb 1, 2022)

How interesting, I hope this new R7 lives up to the expectations of previous 7D users, if this is the line Canon are taking. 

Many Canon shooters have been longing for an updated mirrorless 7D for a long time, lets hope this will be it.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 1, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> Honestly, the only real crop-dedicated lens a R7 needs is something like a APS-C RF-S 15-50mm F/2.8.[..]


If Canon does a non-L zoom with that range I doubt we'll get a constant aperture. The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 always seemed to be out of character for Canon to me, like the EF-M 32mm f/1.4. Maybe that's how Canon keeps us guessing, by releasing a solid L-like non-L lens that doesn't work on the high end bodies.


----------



## maboleth (Feb 1, 2022)

I have effectively moved from 5D4 to 90D (still keeping 5d for special occasions). Various reasons, but R7 is the only mirrorless camera I'm looking at the moment.

In order for me to "jump" to RF several things needs to be addressed.

- Better battery life
- Better prices overall for RF lenses (RF 50mm f1.8 is almost twice as expensive in my country than regular EF 50mm f1.8 STM)
- Sub 2000 eur camera price, in-line with 7D/MK2 at their announcement dates.

Until then, I'm more than happy to stay where I am. For less than 1700 euros I have bought Canon 90D, 18-135 nano, 24mm 2.8 stm pancake, 10-18mm f4.5 stm lenses. All new, left the factory plant in November 2021! And all stellar performers, nailing the focus even in high-changing situations like birding at 135mm. Or ideal lifestyle documentary lens of EFS 24mm. With a battery life of 1300-1800 shots Cipa, I forget when I charge it. If I need a quick live view, there's a swivel touch screen with face and eye detection that is focusing brilliantly and intelligently throughout the frame.


----------



## Berowne (Feb 1, 2022)

Could be interesting for me, to complement my R6. If it has at least the 32 Mp of the 90D I will eventually have one - nice combo with the 100-400 Mk II (& TC 1.4).


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Feb 1, 2022)

SPECS! I NEED SPECS!!


----------



## mbike999 (Feb 1, 2022)

This seems to jive given 2022 is shaping up to be the "year of the crop camera" in many ways - GH6, OM-D, Fuji X-H2, and probably Sony A6700. Who said crop cameras are dead?


----------



## entoman (Feb 1, 2022)

elias723 said:


> Canon no invirtio en lentes aspc Ef-S ni en los Ef-m asi que esta vez tampoco será diferente


No necesariamente. Creo que es bastante probable que lancen un pancake gran angular y un kit de zoom especialmente para el "R7". Eso es todo lo que realmente necesitan, ya que los teleobjetivos EF y RF existentes, como 100-400 mm y 100-500 mm, se combinan perfectamente con una cámara APS-C.


----------



## entoman (Feb 1, 2022)

cgc said:


> I bet (it's free ) it will be the hybrid APS-C. That way it would follow the tradition (5D -> R5, 6D -> R6, 7D -> R7)...
> 
> In addition, the (I assume fake) photo at CanonRumors shows a crop sensor
> 
> BTW... what are the chances of an hybrid (EVF+OVF) R1?


Yes I think we can take it for granted that all future R series cameras will be video-stills hybrids. Some will prioritise stills, others will prioritise video, but both will be on all models.


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 1, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> Honestly, the only real crop-dedicated lens a R7 needs is something like a APS-C RF-S 15-50mm F/2.8. Anything longer and you might as well just get the RF 100-400 or RF 600, both of which really don't cost all that much to begin with.
> 
> Would be nice to see Canon release a 200-600 or 200-500 sorta lens for $1500, though. That would be a great middleground between the RF 600/800, 100-400, and 100-500.


That might be true if the owner also owns a FF body. Otherwise, the R7 also would need a wide zoom, perhaps a 10-20 f/4 and a fast and small 30mm prime.

If Canon makes an R7, might they also introduce an M7 that is 90-95% common with the R7?


----------



## definedphotography (Feb 1, 2022)

maboleth said:


> In order for me to "jump" to RF several things needs to be addressed.
> 
> - Better battery life
> - Better prices overall for RF lenses (RF 50mm f1.8 is almost twice as expensive in my country than regular EF 50mm f1.8 STM)
> - Sub 2000 eur camera price, in-line with 7D/MK2 at their announcement dates.



you'll be waiting a long time then. the battery life on MLCs is generally worse than their DSLR cousins, the prices of RF glass is generally more than EF equivalents and the RF cameras have also been priced higher than their DSLR equivalents.

All that said, I wouldn't give up my R5  Its been a fantastic improvement over the 5D IV.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 1, 2022)

I imagine this would be Canon’s second stacked sensor camera.


----------



## entoman (Feb 1, 2022)

Fingers crossed that this will be a pro-grade sports/wildlife orientated camera, although the hints that it is a cross between an M50 and a 7DMkii could indicate otherwise.

If it's pro-grade, with bird-eye AF, fast burst speeds, an R6-based bodyshell, and a decent sensor with 28MP or more, it would make a great companion to my R5.


----------



## kaihp (Feb 1, 2022)

And the 7D crowd goes ballistic in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... now


----------



## John Wilde (Feb 1, 2022)

The 7D II launched at $1799 (body only), so it's safe to say that a R7 isn't an M replacement.


----------



## maboleth (Feb 1, 2022)

definedphotography said:


> you'll be waiting a long time then. the battery life on MLCs is generally worse than their DSLR cousins, the prices of RF glass is generally more than EF equivalents and the RF cameras have also been priced higher than their DSLR equivalents.
> 
> All that said, I wouldn't give up my R5  Its been a fantastic improvement over the 5D IV.



No probs then, though I do think the prices will go down eventually. Esp. with cropped sensors. I was always a massive fan of 7D cameras so will get my eyes on R7 specs at least.

I'm nowhere in a hurry, I can get everything done with 90d and 5d4, both professionally and for a hobby. I made a vow with myself never to spend over 2k for a camera anymore. The images I'm most fond of and the most money I made (per-image ratio) was with original 7D. And I'm not even doing sports, but lifestyle and portraits.


----------



## entoman (Feb 1, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> Would be nice to see Canon release a 200-600 or 200-500 sorta lens for $1500, though. That would be a great middleground between the RF 600/800, 100-400, and 100-500.


With an APS-C crop factor of 1.6x, the RF 100-500mm would be equivalent to a 160-800mm on the "R7".


----------



## lote82 (Feb 1, 2022)

mbike999 said:


> This seems to jive given 2022 is shaping up to be the "year of the crop camera" in many ways - GH6, OM-D, Fuji X-H2, and probably Sony A6700. Who said crop cameras are dead?


M-losers... I mean users... So sorry!


----------



## ncvarsity3 (Feb 1, 2022)

entoman said:


> Fingers crossed that this will be a pro-grade sports/wildlife orientated camera, although the hints that it is a cross between an M50 and a 7DMkii could indicate otherwise.
> 
> If it's pro-grade, with bird-eye AF, fast burst speeds, an R6-based bodyshell, and a decent sensor with 28MP or more, it would make a great companion to my R5.


If it did all this and took the R5/6 battery grip. I probably couldn't preorder it fast enough lol


----------



## entoman (Feb 1, 2022)

ncvarsity3 said:


> If it did all this and took the R5/6 battery grip. I probably couldn't preorder it fast enough lol


Same here. I normally wait a few months after a model is released (until the price drops and the initial bugs are sorted), but it's what I hope it is, I'll order straight away.


----------



## entoman (Feb 1, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> The 7D II launched at $1799 (body only), so it's safe to say that a R7 isn't an M replacement.


Hard to say. The person who started the rumour apparently said it was like a cross between an M50 and a 7DMkii. If true, that would seem to indicate a slightly larger than M-sized camera with RF mount. We have no real idea of the specification yet, let alone the price, so the launch cost of the 7DMkii isn't relevant. The new camera could be a budget model, or it could be a semi-pro model, we just don't know.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Feb 1, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes I think we can take it for granted that all future R series cameras will be video-stills hybrids. Some will prioritise stills, others will prioritise video, but both will be on all models.


Aren’t all modern camera hybrids really?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Aren’t all modern camera hybrids really?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 1, 2022)

entoman said:


> With an APS-C crop factor of 1.6x, the RF 100-500mm would be equivalent to a 160-800mm on the "R7".


Only in field of view.


----------



## entoman (Feb 1, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Aren’t all modern camera hybrids really?


Exactly. I can't name any digital stills camera that doesn't also have at least basic functionality. Which is why I found cgc's comment odd.


----------



## tapanit (Feb 1, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> That might be true if the owner also owns a FF body. Otherwise, the R7 also would need a wide zoom, perhaps a 10-20 f/4 and a fast and small 30mm prime.


Given the RF 16/2.8, 35/1.8 and 50/1.8, I don't really see any need for anything but a standard zoom (17-55 or so) and a wide-angle zoom (10-20 or so), and the latter they might do without for a while (the extant EF-S 10-18 or 10-22 with an adapter will do well enough). Although I kind of expect an RF 28mm f/1.8 or so anyway,


----------



## entoman (Feb 1, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Only in field of view.


Yes. The 100-500mm would become an effective 160-800mm F7.2-11.36.

The RF 600mm F11 would become an effective 960mm F17.6.

.... and the RF 800mm F11 would become an effective 1280mm F17.6.
.... and the RF 800mm F11 with a 1.4x extender attached would become an effective 1792mm F24.64, if my math is correct.

It's always worth doing the math when considering various lens options!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2022)

entoman said:


> Exactly. I can't name any digital stills camera that doesn't also have at least basic [video] functionality.


I can, and I did.


----------



## NKD (Feb 1, 2022)

Interesting!
I do hope bodies like these are considered pro bodies & come with the R3's amazing body with in built grip. 7d2 and the 5dsR future replacements


----------



## entoman (Feb 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I can, and I did.


Hahaha! Somehow I knew that if anyone chimed in with a reply, it would be you neuro!

So please enlighten us.

Edit: I see your pic of the Nikon Df appeared in the interlude.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 1, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes. The 100-500mm would become an effective 160-800mm F7.2-11.36.


If you are at the same distance from your subject, the RF 100-150mm f/4.5-f/7.1 lens is still effectively a 100-150mm f/4-5-f/7.1 on a crop as it is on a FF, and that is the usual situation when we are out photographing birds etc. It's only effectively a 160-800mm F7.2-11.36 on the crop if you are standing 1.6x further away with the crop than with the FF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2022)

AlanF said:


> If you are at the same distance from your subject, the RF 100-150mm f/4.5-f/7.1 lens is still effectively a 100-150mm f/4-5-f/7.1 on a crop as it is on a FF, and that is the usual situation when we are out photographing birds etc. It's only effectively a 160-800mm F7.2-11.36 on the crop if you are standing 1.6x further away with the crop than with the FF.


But assuming a higher pixel density on the crop sensor, it would put more pixels on duck.


----------



## entoman (Feb 1, 2022)

AlanF said:


> If you are at the same distance from your subject, the RF 100-150mm f/4.5-f/7.1 lens is still effectively a 100-150mm f/4-5-f/7.1 on a crop as it is on a FF, and that is the usual situation when we are out photographing birds etc. It's only effectively a 160-800mm F7.2-11.36 on the crop if you are standing 1.6x further away with the crop than with the FF.


That'll teach me not to listen to dpreview articles about "equivalence" anymore then...


----------



## AlanF (Feb 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> But assuming a higher pixel density on the crop sensor, it would put more pixels on duck.


That's a different matter altogether, but crucial. The FF 5DSR has the same pixel density as the crop 7DII, and so they both put the same number of pixels on a duck with the same focal length lens. It's the same with the D850 and the D500 - they both have the same pixel density. Resolution is given primarily by the combination of focal length of the lens and the pixel density of the sensor, and that is precisely why it is wrong to consider crop factor by itself as a measure of resolution.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Feb 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> View attachment 202328


Well apart from that novelty retro one anyway!


----------



## entoman (Feb 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> But assuming a higher pixel density on the crop sensor, it would put more pixels on duck.


Yep, that to me would be the main advantage of getting an "R7".

The 45MP sensor of the R5, cropped down to APS-C size, becomes a measly 17MP.
I'd assume, possibly wrongly, that the "R7" would have at least 24MP and quite possibly 33MP.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 1, 2022)

I figured that the first APS-S camera in the R line would be the R7. It leaves Canon with all options left on the table. They release a crop (semi-) pro body and need no lenses for it. If it sells well enough, they can release two further crop body and design two specific lenses (1x kit lenses/ 1x UWA) and have a great entry level-enthusiast-(semi-) pro line up. 

If it doesn't sell well, then they just say: Well, we did what customers wanted to do. It didn't work out. Buy M-cameras for APS-C of RF for Full-frame. 

So basically, Canon can test the market for crop-body camera without making a commitment or statement about the M-line just yet.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 1, 2022)

The best thing IF this camera is released:

It would finally end discussions about its necessity and the "should there/ shouldn't there"/ will there/ won't there" be a crop semi pro camera  I kind feel nearly every thread was hijacked by this topic lately.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 1, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yep, that to me would be the main advantage of getting an "R7".
> 
> The 45MP sensor of the R5, cropped down to APS-C size, becomes a measly 17MP.
> I'd assume, possibly wrongly, that the "R7" would have at least 24MP and quite possibly 33MP.


I agree, I expect a 34MP sensor.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 1, 2022)

entoman said:


> The 45MP sensor of the R5, cropped down to APS-C size, becomes a measly 17MP.
> I'd assume, possibly wrongly, that the "R7" would have at least 24MP and quite possibly 33MP.


Let's be clear that 7D users were quite happy with 18mp at the time and 7Dii are also happy with 20mp. Yes, they would like more and the 90D/M6ii showed a higher density sensor but "measly" is a poor choice of words
I recall the chorus of A7siii fanboys saying that 12mp was more than sufficient for stills.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 1, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Let's be clear that 7D users were quite happy with 18mp at the time and 7Dii are also happy with 20mp. Yes, they would like more and the 90D/M6ii showed a higher density sensor but "measly" is a poor choice of words
> I recall the chorus of A7siii fanboys saying that 12mp was more than sufficient for stills.


I think you should put in perspective what the 7dii offered in compared to the 5dIV crop mode. The later had a crop mode resolution of 11.7 MP, so the 7dii´s 20MP offered almost twice the amount of pixels. More importantl, it gave people room to work for example for addional cropping in post). 

The R5´s crop mode has 17,5MP so 20 MP would not be a real gain. If the R7 would have to offer only 20MP, a lot of people would skip a second (crop) body and invest in one "all-in-one" Body offering such as the R5. Therefore, imho the R7 has to offer a lot more MP than the 7dii did in order to be a success. I'd figure double the amount of MP of R5 in crop mode --> 34MP


----------



## entoman (Feb 1, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Let's be clear that 7D users were quite happy with 18mp at the time and 7Dii are also happy with 20mp. Yes, they would like more and the 90D/M6ii showed a higher density sensor but "measly" is a poor choice of words
> I recall the chorus of A7siii fanboys saying that 12mp was more than sufficient for stills.


It's my personal viewpoint David. I had 7D, 7DMkii (and plenty of other Canon DSLRs), and for me, the low MP counts were insufficient, as I photograph mostly wildlife, where I find that quite heavy cropping is needed.

Sure, there's the alternative of using a longer focal length to get a narrower angle of view, but lenses such as the 600mm F4L are way beyond what I'm prepared to pay. And there are many who simply don't have that much disposable income.

So for me, and my genres and methodology, a sensor with less than 20MP is "measly", although of course for other photographers with different wants and needs, that may not apply.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 1, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yep, that to me would be the main advantage of getting an "R7".
> 
> The 45MP sensor of the R5, cropped down to APS-C size, becomes a measly 17MP.
> I'd assume, possibly wrongly, that the "R7" would have at least 24MP and quite possibly 33MP.


I7 Mpx is hardly measly, it’s pretty close to the 7DII, in fact it‘s only 8% less resolution. I had a 32 Mpx 90D for a while and had to use f/4 or wider to take advantage of its resolution. At the isos we use for bird photography, 800 or more, the noise ratchets the resolution down and I was getting as good images on the 5DSR, though in ideal conditions the 90 D is very nice. 50 Mpx FF is bit of a sweet spot in practical terms.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 1, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> Honestly, the only real crop-dedicated lens a R7 needs is something like a APS-C RF-S 15-50mm F/2.8. Anything longer and you might as well just get the RF 100-400 or RF 600, both of which really don't cost all that much to begin with.
> 
> Would be nice to see Canon release a 200-600 or 200-500 sorta lens for $1500, though. That would be a great middleground between the RF 600/800, 100-400, and 100-500.


I contend that Canon doesn't need to release any dedicated RF-s lenses (creating a 5th lens mount system) as adapted EF-s lenses already cover the range. Existing 7D/7Dii users would already have these lenses IF they wanted to cover wide angle so no change for them besides the adapter.

Canon already have a RF15-35mm/2.8L which is heavy and expensive. Can you point to a patent/rumor for that focal length that would be low cost/size/weight? The closest in the rumors roadmap is RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM

I can't see Canon releasing a 200-600/500mm lens when you can add a TC 1.4/2x to the RF100-400mm. Yes, the cost of the TCs are relatively significant but still fit in the price segmentation that you are referring to.


----------



## entoman (Feb 1, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I7 Mpx is hardly measly, it’s pretty close to the 7DII, in fact it‘s only 8% less resolution. I had a 32 Mpx 90D for a while and had to use f/4 or wider to take advantage of its resolution. At the isos we use for bird photography, 800 or more, the noise ratchets the resolution down and I was getting as good images on the 5DSR, though in ideal conditions the 90 D is very nice. 50 Mpx FF is bit of a sweet spot in practical terms.


I agree that the 45MP of the R5 is a nice sweet spot for a FF camera (and it's a very good sensor). The point I was trying to make is that in order for the "R7" to have appeal to wildlife photographers, it needs to offer *more* resolution than a cropped R5 can produce. Otherwise, what would be the benefit of getting the "R7"?


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 1, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I think you should put in perspective what the 7dii offered in compared to the 5dIV crop mode. The later had a crop mode resolution of 11.7 MP, so the 7dii´s 20MP offered almost twice the amount of pixels. More importantl, it gave people room to work for example for addional cropping in post).
> 
> The R5´s crop mode has 17,5MP so 20 MP would not be a real gain. If the R7 would have to offer only 20MP, a lot of people would skip a second (crop) body and invest in one "all-in-one" Body offering such as the R5. Therefore, imho the R7 has to offer a lot more MP than the 7dii did in order to be a success. I'd figure double the amount of MP of R5 in crop mode --> 34MP


We certainly have increasing expectations for MP and want the ability to crop on crop sensors as well  
7D forum users have said that the R5 is too expensive for them so perhaps is not a good option as they would have already jumped if that was the case.
I think that Canon reusing the 90D sensor with 10fps would satisfy most of the remaining community to switch


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 1, 2022)

entoman said:


> So for me, and my genres and methodology, a sensor with less than 20MP is "measly", although of course for other photographers with different wants and needs, that may not apply.


I agree that it is your opinion (and mine can be different) but the 1Dxiii/R6 users seem to be okay with 20mp for sports/action.


----------



## entoman (Feb 1, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I contend that Canon doesn't need to release any dedicated RF-s lenses (creating a 5th lens mount system) as adapted EF-s lenses already cover the range. Existing 7D/7Dii users would already have these lenses IF they wanted to cover wide angle so no change for them besides the adapter.
> 
> Canon already have a RF15-35mm/2.8L which is heavy and expensive. Can you point to a patent/rumor for that focal length that would be low cost/size/weight? The closest in the rumors roadmap is RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
> 
> I can't see Canon releasing a 200-600/500mm lens when you can add a TC 1.4/2x to the RF100-400mm. Yes, the cost of the TCs are relatively significant but still fit in the price segmentation that you are referring to.


Except that most people would probably prefer to use native RF glass, rather than adapt some rather dated EF glass.


----------



## Inspired (Feb 1, 2022)

Hope it is full frame


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 1, 2022)

entoman said:


> With an APS-C crop factor of 1.6x, the RF 100-500mm would be equivalent to a 160-800mm on the "R7".


They don't have to use the 1.6x crop factor for R.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 1, 2022)

entoman said:


> Except that most people would probably prefer to use native RF glass, rather than adapt some rather dated EF glass.


I agree but would/should Canon release a 5th lens mount? 
What price point would you expect new RF glass to hit for these users?
Would Canon make money based on the relatively small volume of sales of them?
I would contend that most xxD/xxxD users would never consider buying a wide angle lens.
If Canon did release a RF-s lens then it would just use the ef-s "dated" optical formula, weld on an adapter and maybe improve the focus speed.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 1, 2022)

entoman said:


> I agree that the 45MP of the R5 is a nice sweet spot for a FF camera (and it's a very good sensor). The point I was trying to make is that in order for the "R7" to have appeal to wildlife photographers, it needs to offer *more* resolution than a cropped R5 can produce. Otherwise, what would be the benefit of getting the "R7"?


The diffraction limited aperture of a 32 Mpx sensor is f/5.2. The RF 100-400mm f/8 will be really showing diffraction on it and you wouldn’t be getting the best out of the RF 100-500mm f/7.1. You would have to buy the big white f/4s or otherwise the extra Mpx will just be window dressing. I’d be happy with a 20-24 Mpx R7 as a back up to my R5 and would probably buy one.


----------



## entoman (Feb 1, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I agree that it is your opinion (and mine can be different) but the 1Dxiii/R6 users seem to be okay with 20mp for sports/action.


Sports/action photographers are probably shooting for magazines or newspapers, where a resolution of even 12MP is more than enough for a full page image. Most sports pros will also be in a position to buy or hire very expensive big whites. Furthermore, as pros, they'll be highly skilled at tracking and framing fast moving sports players, so can get away with less cropping.

I'm a hobbyist wildlife photographer, as are many here. We need more affordable options, which is where a combination of high MP sensors, shorter and more affordable lenses, heavier cropping, and lower skill levels at tracking subjects becomes relevant.

Like I said, I'm just giving my own perspective, and for me, 20MP is "measly". I can just about justify and afford the cost of an R5, a RF 100-500mm and RF 800mm. But no way am I going to buy a 1DXiii, a 400mm F2.8 and a 600mm F4.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 1, 2022)

entoman said:


> Otherwise, what would be the benefit of getting the "R7"?


I am expecting a 24MP stacked sensor with no blackout that can push 30 or more FPS 14bit. That puts it well ahead of the R5 for wildlife unless you are just taking pictures of stationary animals that don't move. Though I do recall the 7D as being popular for all kinds of sports shooters so I fully expect the selling point will be high FPS at full bit depth with a blackout free fully electric (perhaps even shutter free) sensor.


----------



## entoman (Feb 1, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> They don't have to use the 1.6x crop factor for R.


Canon traditionally uses a 1.6x crop factor on their APS-C DSLRs and M series MILCs. They are highly unlikely to introduce another format. The crop factor will be 1.6x, take my word for it.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 1, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Well apart from that novelty retro one anyway!


The Df was no slouch in its time, it carried over a lot of tech from the D4. If you shot Nikon (glass) but had a penchant for Fuji design and dials galore as well, that was a good body for you. I have an acquaintance that still uses it.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Feb 1, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> The Df was no slouch in its time, it carried over a lot of tech from the D4. If you shot Nikon (glass) but had a penchant for Fuji design and dials galore as well, that was a good body for you. I have an acquaintance that still uses it.


Oh yeah I’m not denying it was a good camera. Just the design and decision to leave out video was the retro noveltyness.


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 1, 2022)

entoman said:


> I agree that the 45MP of the R5 is a nice sweet spot for a FF camera (and it's a very good sensor). The point I was trying to make is that in order for the "R7" to have appeal to wildlife photographers, it needs to offer *more* resolution than a cropped R5 can produce. Otherwise, what would be the benefit of getting the "R7"?


The benefit would be paying a lot less money - perhaps 1/2 as much. What a surprising number of people on this forum don't seem to understand or realize is that many folks can not afford an R5.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 1, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> I am expecting a 24MP stacked sensor with no blackout that can push 30 or more FPS 14bit. That puts it well ahead of the R5 for wildlife unless you are just taking pictures of stationary animals that don't move. Though I do recall the 7D as being popular for all kinds of sports shooters so I fully expect the selling point will be high FPS at full bit depth with a blackout free fully electric (perhaps even shutter free) sensor.


If the R7 had these specs, then where in the product segmentation would the R7 fit in? More expensive than the R6? With 30fps, wouldn't that potentially hit R3 sales?
The R5 has banding issues under indoor lights with eshutter. I am not sure how the Z9 gets around them. I expect that there will be a mechanical shutter.


----------



## entoman (Feb 1, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> I am expecting a 24MP stacked sensor with no blackout that can push 30 or more FPS 14bit. That puts it well ahead of the R5 for wildlife unless you are just taking pictures of stationary animals that don't move. Though I do recall the 7D as being popular for all kinds of sports shooters so I fully expect the selling point will be high FPS at full bit depth with a blackout free fully electric (perhaps even shutter free) sensor.


Yes, one possibility is a lower resolution sensor and really fast burst speeds. But most wildlife (including BIF) photographers that I know (hobbyists and pros), only very rarely, if ever, shoot at 20fps. When slower burst speeds are available, they'll usually opt for no more than about 12fps. Their argument is that it is sufficient for almost any subject, and that shooting at higher fps has multiple disadvantages:

buffers fill faster with a risk of lockups
AF and tracking become less reliable
much more time is needed to go through the images to choose the best ones
Also there is the issue of which camera would sell best for Canon, and I'd contend that a 33MP, 20fps camera would sell in much greater numbers than a 24MP 30fps camera.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 1, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> If the R7 had these specs, then where in the product segmentation would the R7 fit in? More expensive than the R6? With 30fps, wouldn't that potentially hit R3 sales?
> The R5 has banding issues under indoor lights with eshutter. I am not sure how the Z9 gets around them. I expect that there will be a mechanical shutter.


The Z9 gets around them by matching the read speed of a mechanical shutter. Stacked sensors like the A1 where already dreadfully close to hitting the magic number and by the R3 Mk2 and Z9 Mk2 we'll be surpassing the mechanical shutter I expect.

As for the product segmentation. The R7 doesn't have to be cheaper than the R6, the 7D and 7D Mk2 at least here were priced at or above the 6D and 6D Mk2 and I would argue the 7D was far more capable. 

As for R3 sales for a start it isn't an R3. The R3 is full frame, in a 1-series body, has more buttons, the fancy touch joysticks, and eye control.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 1, 2022)

entoman said:


> Sports/action photographers are probably shooting for magazines or newspapers, where a resolution of even 12MP is more than enough for a full page image. Most sports pros will also be in a position to buy or hire very expensive big whites. Furthermore, as pros, they'll be highly skilled at tracking and framing fast moving sports players, so can get away with less cropping.
> 
> I'm a hobbyist wildlife photographer, as are many here. We need more affordable options, which is where a combination of high MP sensors, shorter and more affordable lenses, heavier cropping, and lower skill levels at tracking subjects becomes relevant.
> 
> Like I said, I'm just giving my own perspective, and for me, 20MP is "measly". I can just about justify and afford the cost of an R5, a RF 100-500mm and RF 800mm. But no way am I going to buy a 1DXiii, a 400mm F2.8 and a 600mm F4.


So.. you want a body that is affordable, higher pixel counts than a professional sports camera to allow for cropping and matched with cheaper long lenses and better tracking. 
It does sound wistful thinking. 
I hope that Canon releases such a camera. It would be well received.
I am very happy with my R5 and RF100-500mm lens. No need for longer focal lengths for me at this time.


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 1, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The diffraction limited aperture of a 32 Mpx sensor is f/5.2. The RF 100-400mm f/8 will be really showing diffraction on it and you wouldn’t be getting the best out of the RF 100-500mm f/7.1. You would have to buy the big white f/4s or otherwise the extra Mpx will just be window dressing. I’d be happy with a 20-24 Mpx R7 as a back up to my R5 and would probably buy one.


Alan, I truly than you for these comments and many of your other threads that point out the diminishing returns of going higher and higher with MPs. I would really like to see 24 MP in a Canon crop camera as I don't have any lenses that would really take advantage of more MPs than that. I am curious as to your thoughts as to how the new RF 100-400 would perform on a 20, 24 or 32 MP sensor. 

Since Canon has used a 32 MP sensor in the M6 II and the 90D, I am afraid that they will have to use at least 32 in the upcoming crop camera, or face the wrath of all the internet reviewers and influencers. They would be killed online, because, alas, almost all of those influencers won't understand the diminishing returns of more MPs. There are, however, threads on the internet by Canon users that list and discuss how various EF lenses perform on the 32 MP sensors and whether they are, or are not, worth buying or using on the cameras with 32 MPs.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 1, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> The benefit would be paying a lot less money - perhaps 1/2 as much. What a surprising number of people on this forum don't seem to understand or realize is that many folks can not afford an R5.


I completely agree but why would Canon release a body half the price of the R5 which would be USD550 cheaper than the R6 but give excellent specs?


----------



## entoman (Feb 1, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> The benefit would be paying a lot less money - perhaps 1/2 as much. What a surprising number of people on this forum don't seem to understand or realize is that many folks can not afford an R5.


I appreciate your point, but think 50% of R5 price is a bit over-optimistic.

If the camera has the same build quality as the R5 (which if it's a sports/wildlife camera, it would need to have), and if it differs primarily in sensor size, the only real difference in manufacturing cost would be the physically smaller sensor. Countering that reduction in cost would be the cost of developing the camera and tooling. So I'd expect the cost to be around $3000.

If the camera is more affordable and designed more for the "Rebel" market, I'd expect the specification and build quality to be relatively poor and far from ideal for sports/wildlife, where cameras are regularly exposed to extreme weather and get more than their fair share of knocks and bangs.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 1, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes, one possibility is a lower resolution sensor and really fast burst speeds. But most wildlife (including BIF) photographers that I know (hobbyists and pros), only very rarely, if ever, shoot at 20fps. When slower burst speeds are available, they'll usually opt for no more than about 12fps. Their argument is that it is sufficient for almost any subject, and that shooting at higher fps has multiple disadvantages:
> 
> buffers fill faster with a risk of lockups
> AF and tracking become less reliable
> ...



With CF Express you wouldn't run into any buffering on a R7 with 24 MP 30 FPS. AF is just as reliable at 12 FPS as it is on 120 FPS depending on the camera, I just shot a bunch of tests with my Z9's 120 FPS mode and it happy produced over 2000 tack sharp images of my snakes striking things. The time to filter the images is a legit issue, I use Aftershot to help filter but really what we need is the Stacks feature from Aperture brought into Capture One so it can intelligently group a burst into one stack that you edit then promote the keeper candidates to the top.

And FYI I shoot wildlife at 15, 20, 30, and 120 FPS just now. Canon can and should let you pick a variable FPS for the R7.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 1, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Alan, I truly than you for these comments and many of your other threads that point out the diminishing returns of going higher and higher with MPs. I would really like to see 24 MP in a Canon crop camera as I don't have any lenses that would really take advantage of more MPs than that. I am curious as to your thoughts as to how the new RF 100-400 would perform on a 20, 24 or 32 MP sensor.
> 
> Since Canon has used a 32 MP sensor in the M6 II and the 90D, I am afraid that they will have to use at least 32 in the upcoming crop camera, or face the wrath of all the internet reviewers and influencers. They would be killed online, because, alas, almost all of those influencers won't understand the diminishing returns of more MPs. There are, however, threads on the internet by Canon users that list and discuss how various EF lenses perform on the 32 MP sensors and whether they are, or are not, worth buying or using on the cameras with 32 MPs.


I guess that the internet broke when the R6 was released at 20mps (same as the 1DXiii). It still sells well.
The R5 was also killed online due to the perceived overheating (in 3 video modes) that rendered it useless but Canon are still selling them ok.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 1, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> With CF Express you wouldn't run into any buffering on a R7 with 24 MP 30 FPS. AF is just as reliable at 12 FPS as it is on 120 FPS depending on the camera, I just shot a bunch of tests with my Z9's 120 FPS mode and it happy produced over 2000 tack sharp images of my snakes striking things. The time to filter the images is a legit issue, I use Aftershot to help filter but really what we need is the Stacks feature from Aperture brought into Capture One so it can intelligently group a burst into one stack that you edit then promote the keeper candidates to the top.
> 
> And FYI I shoot wildlife at 15, 20, 30, and 120 FPS just now. Canon can and should let you pick a variable FPS for the R7.


The R5 can shoot 20fps (12 bit) @45mp to the USH-ii SD card. There is no need for CFe slot unless there is high bandwidth video being recorded. 
Can you comment on the Z9's ability to avoid banding with eshutter for indoor lit sports?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 1, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> The R5 can shoot 20fps (12 bit) @45mp to the USH-ii SD card. There is no need for CFe slot unless there is high bandwidth video being recorded.
> Can you comment on the Z9's ability to avoid banding with eshutter for indoor lit sports?


You do need CF Express for hi speed shooting or a very deep buffer. UHS-II SD cards are way to slow and we are already getting cameras like the Z9 and likely R1 that need the upcoming 2 GB/s cards and CF Express 2.0. 

I don't shoot sports but have indeed tired it, it just works. There is a mode to help if you are having issues but in general it'll behave exactly the same as a mechanical shutter camera. The main issue others have witnessed on all of these cameras was more outdoor sports with LED adverts that were not in sync with the stadium lights. This LED advert issue isn't present on a mechanical shutter as it produces a softer background with the shutter causing some blur. You'll find in the coming months many more shooters with R3's and Z9's reporting what works and what doesn't.


----------



## entoman (Feb 1, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> With CF Express you wouldn't run into any buffering on a R7 with 24 MP 30 FPS. AF is just as reliable at 12 FPS as it is on 120 FPS depending on the camera, I just shot a bunch of tests with my Z9's 120 FPS mode and it happy produced over 2000 tack sharp images of my snakes striking things. The time to filter the images is a legit issue, I use Aftershot to help filter but really what we need is the Stacks feature from Aperture brought into Capture One so it can intelligently group a burst into one stack that you edit then promote the keeper candidates to the top.
> 
> And FYI I shoot wildlife at 15, 20, 30, and 120 FPS just now. Canon can and should let you pick a variable FPS for the R7.


Comparing a $4500 Nikon Z9 with an APS-C is unrealistic, as there's no way that Canon could sell them at anywhere near the price of the Z9. Just like Olympus couldn't sell the ridiculously over-priced EM1x. Even if it's got pro build-quality, the "R7" won't exceed $3000. Sorry but I just can't see the camera you desire ever being made. Canon's objective will be to make a camera that sells in high numbers and brings in a handsome profit, so expect a far more modest specification, and one that fits between other models in their pricing structure.

If you need to shoot at 120fps or even 30fps to capture snakes striking things, it seems pointless to me, as I have achieved similarly tack sharp shots at less than 10fps - in fact I've done it several times just in single-shot mode! For BIF, anything faster than 20fps similarly seems like overkill.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 1, 2022)

entoman said:


> Comparing a $4500 Nikon Z9 with an APS-C is unrealistic, as there's no way that Canon could sell them at anywhere near the price of the Z9. Just like Olympus couldn't sell the ridiculously over-priced EM1x. Even if it's got pro build-quality, the "R7" won't exceed $3000. Sorry but I just can't see the camera you desire ever being made. Canon's objective will be to make a camera that sells in high numbers and brings in a handsome profit, so expect a far more modest specification, and one that fits between other models in their pricing structure.
> 
> If you need to shoot at 120fps or even 30fps to capture snakes striking things, it seems pointless to me, as I have achieved similarly tack sharp shots at less than 10fps - in fact I've done it several times just in single-shot mode! For BIF, anything faster than 20fps similarly seems like overkill.


I am expecting the R7 to be a successor to the 7D Mk2 so the specifications I set match what a modern 7D would look like. I am not suggesting it match the Z9 nor R3 for that matter. I am suggesting it lives up to what the 7D line has achieved before it. If it does 'only' 20 FPS it still do a better 20 FPS than the R5/R6 are capable of if they give it a stacked sensor and make it sports focused. 

And you know you don't need 120 FPS for most things, but it does get you more interesting shots or important data. You don't alway have use for a 300 fps global shutter camera, it doesn't mean it can't help you produce the result. As for 20 FPS bird in flight, well that's rather ridiculous because we have so many species of birds and smaller ones tent to be much faster than bigger ones and what you can get out of 20 fps vs 30 fps might be the winning shot or still not enough. 

20 FPS 24MP stacked sensor is modest for a 7d replacement. Bumping it to 30 fps isn't even pushing the current Digit X into a corner so it is also a reasonable expectation. If you don't want 30 switch it down to 20, 15, 12, 10, 5, or even 1 fps to match the subject.


----------



## Otara (Feb 2, 2022)

Ill be interested to see if there much benefit to cropping an R5 vs whatever benefit a higher MP APS-C can offer. 

Markettingwise it will fit the segment Id say, closer to 7D2, Id expect higher, and also depends what impact it would have on R6 sales. My hope would probably just be more for a higher mechanical frame rate, or more usable electronic, given the all or single rates you get with the R5.

Im still in the 'will it even really happen' category though to be honest.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 2, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> You do need CF Express for hi speed shooting or a very deep buffer. UHS-II SD cards are way to slow and we are already getting cameras like the Z9 and likely R1 that need the upcoming 2 GB/s cards and CF Express 2.0.


Using the USH-ii card:
The R5 can record 5.5s of 20fps (110 shots/12bit) or 15s of 12fps (182 shots /14bit).
The R6 can record 9s of 20fps (180 shots/12bit) or >158s of 12fps (>1900 shots /14bit)

CFexpress 2.0 added type A (used and only made by Sony) and unavailable Type C (54 x 74 x 4.8 mm ie huge!) with 4 lanes. 
The Type B cards currently in use today max out at theoretical 2GB/s
I have a Sony Tough 128GB Type B CFe card which has 1480MB/s sustained write speed.
8k/30 raw is 2600Mb/s (325MB/s) is far lower than the card speed
8k/30 IPB lite is 340Mb/s (43MB/s) only needs a V60 SD card as per the advanced user guide (page 915-917)

Let's assume that the R5c is also using the same compression ratio for its 8k/30 raw lite (no uncompressed raw option available) so it would need 86MB/s which still can record on a V90 USH-ii card. This is the same bandwidth needed for R5 8k/30 raw IPB

The A1's 8k is compressed and also can be recorded using the USH-ii card although users can insert a CFe Type A card.

So help me out here... how are "USH-ii cards way too slow"? There are many current USH-ii cards that have >200MB/s sustained writes speeds.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 2, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> I am expecting the R7 to be a successor to the 7D Mk2 so the specifications I set match what a modern 7D would look like. I am not suggesting it match the Z9 nor R3 for that matter.* I am suggesting it lives up to what the 7D line has achieved before it.*


And this is the issue... I believe that he 7D/7Dii were unicorns from a marketing perspective giving features far in excess of the reasonable pricing at the time.

Canon released the 7Dii in 2014 and has been discontinued for some time now. 8 years is far in excess of their product cycle time.
Either Canon believes that they wouldn't sell enough 7Diii bodies to warrant the R&D or it wouldn't fit their product segmentation.
From forum members, you would think that the former is not correct so that only leaves the latter as the reasonable explanation.
If Canon really thought that there was a significantly profitable market for a 7Diii then they would have made that body at the same time as 90D/M6ii in 2019.


----------



## JustUs7 (Feb 2, 2022)

AlanF said:


> If you are at the same distance from your subject, the RF 100-150mm f/4.5-f/7.1 lens is still effectively a 100-150mm f/4-5-f/7.1 on a crop as it is on a FF, and that is the usual situation when we are out photographing birds etc. It's only effectively a 160-800mm F7.2-11.36 on the crop if you are standing 1.6x further away with the crop than with the FF.


Where you’re standing doesn’t make any difference as to the effective focal length of the lens. The crop factor exists full time based on the size of the sensor. It doesn’t magically change when you move farther away. BTW, for effective focal length I’m using the generally accepted field of view. I realize the focal length of the lens doesn’t actually change. 

That said, multiplying the effective f-stop is only relevant to depth of field calculations. It still lets the same amount of light in regardless of sensor size. If I’m at f/7.1, I don’t use a different shutter speed or iso when in crop mode. I was able to confirm this using Av mode with a fixed iso on my current camera. The same shutter speed was recommended using the full sensor and crop mode.


----------



## Pixel (Feb 2, 2022)

What's most exciting about this camera is the 7D II was the first camera to introduce Dual-pixel AF. Could the R7 introduce Quad-Pixel AF to us?


----------



## dcm (Feb 2, 2022)

Time to get the popcorn out....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> Where you’re standing doesn’t make any difference as to the effective focal length of the lens. The crop factor exists full time based on the size of the sensor. It doesn’t magically change when you move farther away.


Please, just don’t. @AlanF understands the concepts quite well. His point, which you apparently missed, was that if you’re already cropping the image from the FF sensor to an area smaller than the APS-C sensor size (which is very common for those shooting birds), the longer ‘effective focal length’ resulting from the smaller sensor is meaningless.

He also understands that exposure is based on light per unit area.

Since you feel compelled to explain things we already know, the DoF doesn’t magically get deeper with a smaller sensor. In fact, because the circle of confusion varies directly with sensor size, the smaller sensor actually has a shallower DoF. It’s when and because you increase the subject distance to match framing on the smaller sensor that the DoF increases.

Enjoy your popcorn, @dcm!


----------



## JustUs7 (Feb 2, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Please, just don’t. @AlanF understands the concepts quite well. His point, which you apparently missed, was that if you’re already cropping the image from the FF sensor to an area smaller than the APS-C sensor size (which is very common for those shooting birds), the longer ‘effective focal length’ resulting from the smaller sensor is meaningless.
> 
> He also understands that exposure is based on light per unit area.
> 
> ...


Appreciate the clarification . I did not pick up on comparing cropping an image from a full frame vs using a cropped sensor. Perhaps taking one post out of context of the larger conversation. 

Size 13 and yet they still fit in my mouth. Amazing.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 2, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Oh yeah I’m not denying it was a good camera. Just the design and decision to leave out video was the retro noveltyness.


Some might say it really should have caught on... the only time I hit the record button is a fat finger moment


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> Appreciate the clarification . I did not pick up on comparing cropping an image from a full frame vs using a cropped sensor. Perhaps taking one post out of context of the larger conversation.
> 
> Size 13 and yet they still fit in my mouth. Amazing.






Size 10 but equally guilty.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 2, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> SPECS! I NEED SPECS!!


Hopefully 24 or 28MP BSI sensor with whatever insane fps these days works for marketing with dual card slots(CFe and SD).


----------



## canonmike (Feb 2, 2022)

entoman said:


> With an APS-C crop factor of 1.6x, the RF 100-500mm would be equivalent to a 160-800mm on the "R7".


Now, that is one pleasant thought, my friend.......


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Hopefully 24 or 28MP BSI sensor with whatever insane fps these days works for marketing with dual card slots(CFe and SD).


To paraphrase Uncle Rog, HINASS (hope is not a spec sheet).


----------



## Chig (Feb 2, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> The benefit would be paying a lot less money - perhaps 1/2 as much. What a surprising number of people on this forum don't seem to understand or realize is that many folks can not afford an R5.


They also can't afford 600mm f/4 lenses either so an R7 with say a converted EF100-400mm ii is much more affordable than an R5 and 600 f/4 and also much lighter


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Feb 2, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Some might say it really should have caught on... the only time I hit the record button is a fat finger moment


Same! Or a shit, dull, out of focus video of my kids blowing candles out on a cake or something.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Feb 2, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Hopefully 24 or 28MP BSI sensor with whatever insane fps these days works for marketing with dual card slots(CFe and SD).


Sounds good to me!


----------



## Joaquim (Feb 2, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> And this is the issue... I believe that he 7D/7Dii were unicorns from a marketing perspective giving features far in excess of the reasonable pricing at the time.
> 
> Canon released the 7Dii in 2014 and has been discontinued for some time now. 8 years is far in excess of their product cycle time.
> Either Canon believes that they wouldn't sell enough 7Diii bodies to warrant the R&D or it wouldn't fit their product segmentation.
> ...


You're likely right that the 7D series was maybe underpriced. Except that in 2019 they were likely already working on the future R3/R1 and the market would have and likely has, preferred to wait instead for a mirrorless successor or just move to Fuji (like I did.)
The 7Dii was meant to be a baby 1D and with the R3 out as a new model in the family, proving what they can do in mirrorless, if the R7 is still certain to be launched, it would be exactly that, a baby R3/R1. (With sadly the rumored caveat of it being a mix with the M50.)


----------



## AlanF (Feb 2, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> Where you’re standing doesn’t make any difference as to the effective focal length of the lens. The crop factor exists full time based on the size of the sensor. It doesn’t magically change when you move farther away. BTW, for effective focal length I’m using the generally accepted field of view. I realize the focal length of the lens doesn’t actually change.
> 
> That said, multiplying the effective f-stop is only relevant to depth of field calculations. It still lets the same amount of light in regardless of sensor size. If I’m at f/7.1, I don’t use a different shutter speed or iso when in crop mode. I was able to confirm this using Av mode with a fixed iso on my current camera. The same shutter speed was recommended using the full sensor and crop mode.


Thank you for having the good grace in your reply to neuro that you misunderstood my post. Your last paragraph here needs some correction, which was implied in neuro's post. The effective f-stop also applies to pixels per duck or light intensity. If, for example, you have an f/2 20mm lens on a 1.6x crop and an f/2 32mm lens on a FF, they do indeed both have the same exposure ratings and the same number of photons fall per unit area of each sensor. But, the image of the duck on the crop is 1.6x1.6 times smaller on the crop and so the total amount of light hitting it is 1/2.56 that of the FF, so the signal/noise from the light is 1.6x less - the image is noisier, especially noticeable at high iso. The 20mm lens on the crop is effectively an f/3.2 lens when it comes to signal to noise, as well as for dof.


----------



## FabFR (Feb 2, 2022)

For an R7, I can imagine a 24 to 26Mpix brand new stacked APSC CMOS Sensor, ultra fast reading, good ISO and dynamics performances, sold in Europe for 1990€ or a bit less (to bother competition).
Why not 32Mpix as the 90D ? Because I think this sensor is more marketing figures than necessity. 
The R3 is "only" 24Mpix, the R6 is 20Mpix, I think 24-26Mpix for a new sport APSC camera could be a maximum pixel count.
If performances are top level, there's no need of pixel marketing arguments.


----------



## Deleted (Feb 2, 2022)

Chig said:


> They also can't afford 600mm f/4 lenses either so an R7 with say a converted EF100-400mm ii is much more affordable than an R5 and 600 f/4 and also much lighter


It is not always about cost. Many of us have big whites etc. Here in the UK, the older members of the birding community feat nothing of dropping £10k on a new scope each year, £3K on the latest bins etc. The same group do tend to walk a long way to see and photograph their subjects. Lugging around their scope, bins, two tripods, a 600mmF4 and a camera body is just a step too far. A lens like the 100-500 on a crop body handheld gets all the pixels on subject many desire with a substantially lighter load.

Compared to many in my local wildlife community I am relatively young and fit. I walk many miles each day photographing wildlife. While I occasionally use my FF setup , I prefer to travel light and react quickly. There are plenty of situations where the 100-400II I currently use with a 7D2 has allowed me to get a shot where I would have otherwise failed. Simple things like when laying in the grass shooting hares. Moving around with a 600 I would have spooked them. There have also been many times where the minimum focus distance of the 100-400 has meant I got the shot, that happened yesterday with hareswhen one came inside 3M away. Finally, here in the UK many reserves only allow you to shoot from their hides. These hides are often designed for birders, not togs. As such the windows are little more than slots too small for the girth of any big lens. Some I can only get the 100-400 through if I remove the hood. It is why lenses like the Nikon 500pf has become popular here.

It is not all about long lenses too. I shoot a lot of handheld macro. A crop body with a 60mm allows me to shoot longer without knackered, shaky arms. My MPE-65 is heavy, particularly when extended so gets less use. My 100L IS rarely gets used over my 60mm for the same reason. Hopefully a crop R7 will arrive and become my macro body of choice when the 80D I currently dedicate to the task dies.

I think often people on these forums think more about specs, what can be done. In practice we are often limited so having more options can only be a good thing. I know plenty of wildlife togs who have both FF and Crop setups so they can shoot as often as possible. I am sure Canon know that hence hopefully releasing a suit


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 2, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Thank you for having the good grace in your reply to neuro that you misunderstood my post. Your last paragraph here needs some correction, which was implied in neuro's post. The effective f-stop also applies to pixels per duck or light intensity. If, for example, you have an f/2 20mm lens on a 1.6x crop and an f/2 32mm lens on a FF, they do indeed both have the same exposure ratings and the same number of photons fall per unit area of each sensor. But, the image of the duck on the crop is 1.6x1.6 times smaller on the crop and so the total amount of light hitting it is 1/2.56 that of the FF, so the signal/noise from the light is 1.6x less - the image is noisier, especially noticeable at high iso. The 20mm lens on the crop is effectively an f/3.2 lens when it comes to signal to noise,


Without any doubt the best explanation as to the disadvantages of APS.
I was still tempted to get one for macro, now, no longer!


----------



## mpmark (Feb 2, 2022)

cgc said:


> I bet (it's free ) it will be the hybrid APS-C. That way it would follow the tradition (5D -> R5, 6D -> R6, 7D -> R7)...
> 
> In addition, the (I assume fake) photo at CanonRumors shows a crop sensor
> 
> BTW... what are the chances of an hybrid (EVF+OVF) R1?


Your question regarding a EVF/OVF camera, it’s ZERO! It’s pointless, would be a engeering challenge. And did I mention pointless?


----------



## mpmark (Feb 2, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Thank you for having the good grace in your reply to neuro that you misunderstood my post. Your last paragraph here needs some correction, which was implied in neuro's post. The effective f-stop also applies to pixels per duck or light intensity. If, for example, you have an f/2 20mm lens on a 1.6x crop and an f/2 32mm lens on a FF, they do indeed both have the same exposure ratings and the same number of photons fall per unit area of each sensor. But, the image of the duck on the crop is 1.6x1.6 times smaller on the crop and so the total amount of light hitting it is 1/2.56 that of the FF, so the signal/noise from the light is 1.6x less - the image is noisier, especially noticeable at high iso. The 20mm lens on the crop is effectively an f/3.2 lens when it comes to signal to noise, as well as for dof.


Honestly, you guys are seriously overthinking the purpose of photography, none of that will be something anyone should care about in the real world.


----------



## RF_specialist (Feb 2, 2022)

@maboleth:​Well I expect the prices to go up, not down! The camera industry is declining. The losses in revenue have to be compensated by higher prices!
The newest announcement from Canon: price increase of 100Dollars+ on selected RF Lenses. I bet other lenses will follow.


----------



## lote82 (Feb 2, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> We certainly have increasing expectations for MP and want the ability to crop on crop sensors as well
> 7D forum users have said that the R5 is too expensive for them so perhaps is not a good option as they would have already jumped if that was the case.
> I think that Canon reusing the 90D sensor with 10fps would satisfy most of the remaining community to switch



Exactly!

It's not the question wether R5 or (assuming) R7 is the better camera. For most scenarios the R5 is the better camera. But for long range (wildlife) usage the R7 (probably) will be the better camera (at least if price point and portability is important for you). The R5 is more a generalist, the R7 is more a specialist. 

R5 is a great camera even for wildlife. If I had (or would be willing to pay) the money I would love to by one. But as a wildlife photographer being more on the budget orientated side the R7 (probably) will be the better choice. Paying less to get more pixels per duck is a no-brainer!


----------



## entoman (Feb 2, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> 20 FPS 24MP stacked sensor is modest for a 7d replacement. Bumping it to 30 fps isn't even pushing the current Digit X into a corner so it is also a reasonable expectation. *If you don't want 30 switch it down to 20, 15, 12, 10, 5, or even 1 fps to match the subject.*


If only that were possible. On my R5, when using electronic shutter, it only operates at single shot or 20fps, there is no option to use a lower burst speed, other than to switch to EFCS or mechanical. The "R7" will definitely sit below the R5 in Canon's range, so I'd be very surprised if it enables a choice of burst speeds in electronic shutter. But we can always live in hope.

I also live in hope that Canon will have the sense to allow exposure bracketing in electronic shutter on future models. It seems like a very odd oversight. I always bracket exposures in tricky situations (unless shooting a sequence of BIF), and it would be highly beneficial if I could shoot e.g. a bracketed burst of 3 or 5 shots at 20fps. This would minimise subject movement between frames, allowing for better alignment when stacking.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 2, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The diffraction limited aperture of a 32 Mpx sensor is f/5.2. The RF 100-400mm f/8 will be really showing diffraction on it and you wouldn’t be getting the best out of the RF 100-500mm f/7.1. You would have to buy the big white f/4s or otherwise the extra Mpx will just be window dressing. I’d be happy with a 20-24 Mpx R7 as a back up to my R5 and would probably buy one.


I fully understand what you are saying about diffraction and aware of the calculations behind it.
As far as I am aware, a higher MP body will always give more detail, despite diffraction ( and I have not yet seen an example where that is not the case). In other words, for me, it is not whether I am getting 'the maximum out of the lens' but whether I am getting more detail than I already have. And how much it costs to get that difference. 

Admittedly, the R7 you then come into how a camera with higher than 20MP would fit into the model hierarchy and cost structures that Canon are developing. They did it with the 7D but as this is a new product line it remains to be seen.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 2, 2022)

mpmark said:


> Honestly, you guys are seriously overthinking the purpose of photography, none of that will be something anyone should care about in the real world.


It's your prerogative to underthink seriously the technical aspects of photography, but don't ascribe your opinion to be the only one that anyone should care about in the real world. This is a gear-oriented site where members exchange tips about current gear and speculate on future in order to get the best out of their equipment to further what they think is the purpose of their photography.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 2, 2022)

entoman said:


> If only that were possible. On my R5, when using electronic shutter, it only operates at single shot or 20fps, there is no option to use a lower burst speed, other than to switch to EFCS or mechanical.


The R3 supports different rates and I would expect the R7 if it follows it predecessors will be more akin to that. The 7d and 7d2 where more capable in many ways than their 5d2 and 5d3 counterparts. The R5 should really give you the option to change the rate, I can’t imagine a technical reason.


----------



## entoman (Feb 2, 2022)

mpmark said:


> Honestly, you guys are seriously overthinking the purpose of photography, none of that will be something anyone should care about in the real world.


What we "should care about in the real world" is getting the best images possible, both in terms of composition etc, and technical quality.

The aspects we've been debating affect technical quality, and also aesthetics (depth of field, angles of view etc). They also greatly affect choice and suitability for purpose of equipment we may be considering buying, and the amount of money we need to spend to achieve the desired result.

Some of these issues e.g. "equivalence" are *very* poorly understood by the majority of photographers, so it's helpful to have them fully explained (hopefully in easily digested form) by those who do understand them.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 2, 2022)

Mikehit said:


> I fully understand what you are saying about diffraction and aware of the calculations behind it.
> As far as I am aware, a higher MP body will always give more detail, despite diffraction ( and I have not yet seen an example where that is not the case). In other words, for me, it is not whether I am getting 'the maximum out of the lens' but whether I am getting more detail than I already have. And how much it costs to get that difference.
> 
> Admittedly, the R7 you then come into how a camera with higher than 20MP would fit into the model hierarchy and cost structures that Canon are developing. They did it with the 7D but as this is a new product line it remains to be seen.


In theory you are right that a higher MP body should always give more detail, despite diffraction. However, this predicates that the construction of a higher megapixel sensor does not lose detail because of electronic and physical constraints. I had at one stage both the 1.6x crop 32 Mpx 90D and the 1.5x crop 20.9 Mpx Nikon D500 and got better resolution at the higher isos I work at with the Nikon. This is borne out in two reviews in AP.

https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/dslrs/canon-eos-90d-full-review
Canon EOS 90D Review: Resolution
A close inspection of our resolution chart tells us the EOS 90D’s new sensor resolves a very creditable 3,700l/ph at its base sensitivity of ISO 100. Detail remains high at low sensitivity settings; with resolution figures of 3,600l/ph and 3,400l/ph recorded at ISO 200 and ISO 400 respectively. Push higher into the ISO range and you’ll start to observe fine detail being affected by noise. We recorded 3,100l/ph at ISO 3200 and 2,900l/ph at ISO 6400. The sensor can resolve 2,600l/ph at ISO 12,800 and 2,400l/ph at ISO 25,600 before expansion, with detail dropping right off at ISO 51,000 (2,100l/ph).

https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/dslrs/nikon-d500-review
Nikon D500 Review: Resolution
The D500 captures as much from our resolution charts as we could realistically expect from its 20.9MP sensor. At low ISOs in raw it resolves around 3,700l/ph before maze-like aliasing comes into play; the JPEG processing tends to suppress such artefacts at the expense of slightly lower resolution. But what’s more impressive is its high ISO capability, with 3,000l/ph still recorded at ISO 6,400. At the highest standard setting of ISO 51,200, it achieves 2,600l/ph, but past this things go downhill quickly. Even at ISO 204,800, we see around 2,000l/ph, but the higher extended settings are too poor to be worth reproducing here.


----------



## JustUs7 (Feb 2, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Thank you for having the good grace in your reply to neuro that you misunderstood my post. Your last paragraph here needs some correction, which was implied in neuro's post. The effective f-stop also applies to pixels per duck or light intensity. If, for example, you have an f/2 20mm lens on a 1.6x crop and an f/2 32mm lens on a FF, they do indeed both have the same exposure ratings and the same number of photons fall per unit area of each sensor. But, the image of the duck on the crop is 1.6x1.6 times smaller on the crop and so the total amount of light hitting it is 1/2.56 that of the FF, so the signal/noise from the light is 1.6x less - the image is noisier, especially noticeable at high iso. The 20mm lens on the crop is effectively an f/3.2 lens when it comes to signal to noise, as well as for dof.



I follow all that. But you’re talking about using two different lenses to achieve equivalent field of view. 

How about when you use the same 35mm f/1.8 lens starting 10 ft from your subject on both a full frame sensor and a crop sensor. Assume Canon. Your field of view on the crop sensor is that of an effective 56mm lens. You’d have to back up to 16 ft to get the same framing. Then your depth of field is effectively that of an f/2.8 exposure using 35mm from 10 ft. 

But does your signal to noise ratio change at all since you’re using the same 35mm lens at the same f-stop in the same lighting? The only change being the size is the sensor and the distance from subject?

Same scenario as above, except you don’t move. You take advantage of the reach to put more pixels on subject. Your depth of field is shallower on the crop sensor (divide by 1.6), and your pixels on subject increase. Same actual focal length. Same f-stop. Same light. Any change to signal to noise there?


----------



## JustUs7 (Feb 2, 2022)

mpmark said:


> Honestly, you guys are seriously overthinking the purpose of photography, none of that will be something anyone should care about in the real world.


Of course. But math is fun. I work in finance / accounting. Minutia is my forte. I’m no expert in this subject matter but I like to talk about it and learn about it. 

Meanwhile, I’ll continue my average photography with my RP and M6II and not buy any of this new stuff anyway.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 2, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Alan, I truly than you for these comments and many of your other threads that point out the diminishing returns of going higher and higher with MPs. I would really like to see 24 MP in a Canon crop camera as I don't have any lenses that would really take advantage of more MPs than that. I am curious as to your thoughts as to how the new RF 100-400 would perform on a 20, 24 or 32 MP sensor.
> 
> Since Canon has used a 32 MP sensor in the M6 II and the 90D, I am afraid that they will have to use at least 32 in the upcoming crop camera, or face the wrath of all the internet reviewers and influencers. They would be killed online, because, alas, almost all of those influencers won't understand the diminishing returns of more MPs. There are, however, threads on the internet by Canon users that list and discuss how various EF lenses perform on the 32 MP sensors and whether they are, or are not, worth buying or using on the cameras with 32 MPs.


The RF 100-400 performs very well in the centre at f/8 on the R5, which is equivalent to 17 Mpx crop. I now have two of the lenses and they are just as sharp as the various copies I have had of the 100-400mm II at f/5.6. Stop down to f/11 and you do lose detail. My experience of using the 400mm f/4 DO II and 100-400mm DO II on the 5DIV and 5DSR was the narrower lens was just about as good. But, at low iso on the D90, the f/4 pulled ahead and was sharper, and I saw less benefit of putting on extenders.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 2, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> I follow all that. But you’re talking about using two different lenses to achieve equivalent field of view.
> 
> How about when you use the same 35mm f/1.8 lens starting 10 ft from your subject on both a full frame sensor and a crop sensor. Assume Canon. Your field of view on the crop sensor is that of an effective 56mm lens. You’d have to back up to 16 ft to get the same framing. Then your depth of field is effectively that of an f/2.8 exposure using 35mm from 10 ft.
> 
> But does your signal to noise ratio change at all since you’re using the same 35mm lens at the same f-stop in the same lighting? The only change being the size is the sensor and the distance from subject?


An f/1.8 lens will provide the same light intensity per unit area on the image at any focal length, which is why f-number is what we use for getiing exposure right. If you move back to 16 ft, the size of the duck decreases by 1.6x horizontally and vertically and so the total amount of light hitting it during exposure has gone down 1.6x1.6x. Blow up the image of the duck taken at 16 ft to the same size for viewing as the duck taken at 10 ft, and it will appear noisier.


JustUs7 said:


> Same scenario as above, except you don’t move. You take advantage of the reach to put more pixels on subject. Your depth of field is shallower on the crop sensor (divide by 1.6), and your pixels on subject increase. Same actual focal length. Same f-stop. Same light. Any change to signal to noise there?


The duck is the same size on both sensors and is being illuminated by the same lens. So, if both sensors are equally efficient, then there should be the same S/N for both.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 2, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> Of course. But math is fun. I work in finance / accounting. Minutia is my forte. I’m no expert in this subject matter but I like to talk about it and learn about it.
> 
> Meanwhile, I’ll continue my average photography with my RP and M6II and not buy any of this new stuff anyway.


Good on you! I research and teach in my spare time and my day job is taking photos for fun! I really do like understanding the science behind the art and sharing it with others.


----------



## Bahrd (Feb 2, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> They don't have to use the 1.6x crop factor for R.





entoman said:


> Canon traditionally uses a 1.6x crop factor on their APS-C DSLRs and M series MILCs. They are highly unlikely to introduce another format. The crop factor will be 1.6x, take my word for it.


Could the Super 35 format be a reason behind keeping a 1.6x factor?


----------



## vladk (Feb 2, 2022)

APS-C body would have to be complemented with RF-S 10-22 and lightweight RF-S 17-85.


----------



## JustUs7 (Feb 2, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The duck is the same size on both sensors and is being illuminated by the same lens. So, if both sensors are equally efficient, then there should be the same S/N for both.


This is where I misinterpreted your post that I originally replied to. I was picturing using an R5 vs a mythical R7 both with the RF 100-500 standing in the same spot at the same focal length and photographing the same subject. The R7 putting more pixels on subject of course (assuming something greater than a 17 megapixel sensor, which would be a certainty I expect). In fact, I believe if you crop the full frame image to the same field of view, even your depth of field would be the same. 

I accepted that I misinterpreted your original message. Now I think it just clicked what I misinterpreted about it. Yay! 

Only in backing up 1.6x do you get the same field of view in a crop sensor that you would in a full frame sensor without cropping.


----------



## jordanisaak (Feb 2, 2022)

I'll repeat my guess from the previous thread. The R7 will be an R6 body with an M6II sensor to minimize development cost.

It doesn't make too much sense to me in current camera market conditions for Canon to develop an all new sensor for a relatively niche camera, but if they do it bodes well for the odds of future APS-C bodies to amortize the development cost.


----------



## Paul6 (Feb 2, 2022)

entoman said:


> I agree that the 45MP of the R5 is a nice sweet spot for a FF camera (and it's a very good sensor). The point I was trying to make is that in order for the "R7" to have appeal to wildlife photographers, it needs to offer *more* resolution than a cropped R5 can produce. Otherwise, what would be the benefit of getting the "R7"?


Price


----------



## GoldWing (Feb 2, 2022)

Is this another low resolution camera


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 2, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> That might be true if the owner also owns a FF body. Otherwise, the R7 also would need a wide zoom, perhaps a 10-20 f/4 and a fast and small 30mm prime.
> 
> If Canon makes an R7, might they also introduce an M7 that is 90-95% common with the R7?


Are you saying a camera like this can't use EF-s lenses? 

In 2015 I switched from the 5D series to a 7D mark II and built an entire lens kit around it, with only about half EF lenses (8-15/4L, 50/1.8, 70-200II, 150-600C).

All I *really* want is a 7DII with a 90D sensor in it but SLRs seem dead leaving me with three choices.

1) Quit the hobby (this is essentially what I've done so far).
2) Use my 7DII forever.
3) Get a mirrorless version and hope I can get used to it someday. All the EVFs I've tried don't make me optimistic.

But number 3 can't work if I have to buy all new lenses. That's just not going to happen. Current kit:

8-15/4L
10-18STM
18-135USM
18-35/1.8
50/1.8
55-250STM
70-200/2.8L IS II
150-600C


----------



## SteveC (Feb 2, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I agree but would/should Canon release a 5th lens mount?



It wouldn't have to be a fifth lens _mount_.

They can simply produce lenses that trigger a full-frame camera's crop mode, just like an adapted EF-S lens will. (I want them adequately labeled, though.)


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 2, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The diffraction limited aperture of a 32 Mpx sensor is f/5.2.



No it isn't.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 2, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> Are you saying a camera like this can't use EF-s lenses?...


Of course it can.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 2, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Of course it can.


Oh, sorry for not knowing that, as I haven't followed any R-series developments since I tried the EVFs in the R and Rp and found them unusable.

So, do they support them natively or do you need an adapter?


----------



## Bonich (Feb 2, 2022)

AlanF said:


> If you are at the same distance from your subject, the RF 100-150mm f/4.5-f/7.1 lens is still effectively a 100-150mm f/4-5-f/7.1 on a crop as it is on a FF, and that is the usual situation when we are out photographing birds etc. It's only effectively a 160-800mm F7.2-11.36 on the crop if you are standing 1.6x further away with the crop than with the FF.


The lens never changes specifications.
But the picture style you get WITHOUT changing shooting distance change to 1.6x focal length and (a little bit more than) one stop smaller aperture.
Fact.


----------



## Bonich (Feb 2, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> They don't have to use the 1.6x crop factor for R.


??????????


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 2, 2022)

Bonich said:


> The lens never changes specifications.
> But the picture style you get WITHOUT changing shooting distance change to 1.6x focal length and (a little bit more than) one stop smaller aperture.
> Fact.


Same thing happens when you simply crop an image in post. The only difference is the size of the pixels (if it's actually different) and thus the number of pixels in the crop.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 2, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> No it isn't.


Why did you contradict the statement that the 90D has a DLA of f/5.2, and more puzzling why didn't you say what it is if it isn't f/5.2. I did check it before posting with https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-90D.aspx (I usually check data before posting.) (Or hadn't you realised the discussion was about the sensor in the 90D?)


----------



## lote82 (Feb 2, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> In 2015 I switched from the 5D series to a 7D mark II and built an entire lens kit around it, with only about half EF lenses (8-15/4L, 50/1.8, 70-200II, 150-600C).


Good point!

People often seem to miss the advantage of flexibility (zoom range) of APS-C lenses. There is no FF equivalence for an 16-300mm or 15-85mm lens. I can run and gun a 7d with a 15-85mm and 150-600mm combination for a whole day. Even if you could achieve equivalent zoom range (with more lenses!) on FF, portability and price would suffer heavily! 

I would NEVER claim that APS-C is "better" than FF (neither the other way round). I also know the downsides (f. e. image quality). But if it comes down to flexibility, portability and price, APS-C still has advantages!


----------



## Deleted (Feb 2, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> Are you saying a camera like this can't use EF-s lenses?
> 
> In 2015 I switched from the 5D series to a 7D mark II and built an entire lens kit around it, with only about half EF lenses (8-15/4L, 50/1.8, 70-200II, 150-600C).
> 
> ...


If a crop R like an R7 arrives then an EF adapter should allow you to use all your lenses. I’ve seen all those you listed used with the R5.

EVF technology has massively improved. It was crap IMO. The first Sony A9 was still not up to it imho. The R5, R6 are much better and from the time I have spent using them the benefits are there to be seen. I kept toying with the idea of getting an R5 but have stuck with the 7D2 and am hoping the rumoured R7 arrives and deserves to be a successor. I am quir hopeful.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 2, 2022)

Bonich said:


> The lens never changes specifications.
> But the picture style you get WITHOUT changing shooting distance change to 1.6x focal length and (a little bit more than) one stop smaller aperture.
> Fact.


Of course the lens doesn't change specification. Just read the posts around it and my replies to entoman. It's all about "Equivalence". There's an article about it here: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care


----------



## unfocused (Feb 2, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> Oh, sorry for not knowing that, as I haven't followed any R-series developments since I tried the EVFs in the R and Rp and found them unusable.
> 
> So, do they support them natively or do you need an adapter?


You use the same adapter on an EF-S lens as you use on an EF lens. All current full frame R bodies automatically crop the sensor to fit the 1.6 crop of APS-C. With a full frame body, you can also choose the 1.6 crop yourself when using RF and EF lenses. If Canon produces an APS-C body, it will almost certainly be able to accept any EF and EF-S lenses with the same adapter, but will automatically crop EF lenses to the 1.6 crop.


----------



## Bonich (Feb 2, 2022)

dcm said:


> Time to get the popcorn out....


Indeed!

(Me shooting Canon since 1980)


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 2, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Why did you contradict the statement that the 90D has a DLA of f/5.2, and more puzzling why didn't you say what it is if it isn't f/5.2. I did check it before posting with https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-90D.aspx (I usually check data before posting.) (Or hadn't you realised the discussion was about the sensor in the 90D?)
> 
> View attachment 202337


It's wrong.

I'm not sure what they did wrong, but it's usually one of two methods of getting the wrong answer.

1) Use MTF50 as the cutoff
2) Assume a monochrome sensor with no AA filter

Both are wrong. I've seen people apply *both*, which seems to be closest to the case here.

Using MTF0 as the cutoff (some will use MTF5 for extinction, some MTF9=Airy disk) and assuming a Bayer sensor, it's about f/17 for the 3.2 micron pixels on the 90D. If you prefer MTF9 it's more like f/14.

Obviously, in the case you mentioned above where you are light-limited, resolution will decrease because of a simple lack of photons leading to either low MTF or reduction from noise filtering. But in good light, f/5.2 is nowhere close to correct.


----------



## JohnDeere6930 (Feb 2, 2022)

Honestly, i woud consider upgrading my stash to this, get rid of the 2000D and 7D


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 2, 2022)

maboleth said:


> Until then, I'm more than happy to stay where I am.


While cell phones have had a devastating impact on camera sales in general, the industry faces another very real problem: the DSLRs and lenses of the mid-late 2010's were so highly evolved, and high performance, that there's little reason for a stills shooter to upgrade. The innovation on the video side is impressive. But on the stills side you could put together a DSLR kit that would serve every photographic need indefinitely.


----------



## Deleted (Feb 2, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> While cell phones have had a devastating impact on camera sales in general, the industry faces another very real problem: the DSLRs and lenses of the mid-late 2010's were so highly evolved, and high performance, that there's little reason for a stills shooter to upgrade. The innovation on the video side is impressive. But on the stills side you could put together a DSLR kit that would serve every photographic need indefinitely.


In my case I have worn out multiple 7 series bodies. My current 7d2 is nearing 800k shots. It simply cannot go on forever. The top dial is getting jumpy but other than that it is still working well. Quite a testament to how well Canon made that body. Hopefully it lasts until a suitable R comes out.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 2, 2022)

Distinctly Average said:


> If a crop R like an R7 arrives then an EF adapter should allow you to use all your lenses. I’ve seen all those you listed used with the R5.
> 
> EVF technology has massively improved. It was crap IMO. The first Sony A9 was still not up to it imho. The R5, R6 are much better and from the time I have spent using them the benefits are there to be seen. I kept toying with the idea of getting an R5 but have stuck with the 7D2 and am hoping the rumoured R7 arrives and deserves to be a successor. I am quir hopeful.



Thanks to both of you that responded about the adapter. Didn't know that.

I've been told that EVFs have massively improved so much so that they are better than OVFs ever since the A55, and every time I try one, they're just awful. But the last batch I tried was the first group of Nikon and Canon ones and the the Olympus EM5 Mark II, which was better but still awful. I haven't seen any of the newer cameras.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 2, 2022)

AlanF said:


> In theory you are right that a higher MP body should always give more detail, despite diffraction. However, this predicates that the construction of a higher megapixel sensor does not lose detail because of electronic and physical constraints. I had at one stage both the 1.6x crop 32 Mpx 90D and the 1.5x crop 20.9 Mpx Nikon D500 and got better resolution at the higher isos I work at with the Nikon. This is borne out in two reviews in AP.


While you are correct to point out that other factors can and do limit resolution, and I absolutely believe that you saw this in real life at high ISOs, there's something wrong with one or both of those AP tests. They report the same exact resolution for both sensors at base ISO. Just comparing DPReview RAWs it's clear the 90D resolves significantly more detail at base ISO.

It looks to me like the article author(s) are just eye balling the charts and making a judgement call. Both articles cite the 16 mark as the resolution point for the cameras. But on the D500 chart lines are already starting to merge, while 90D lines remain distinct further than that even if they are experiencing color aliasing.

Again, this doesn't undermine your point. I would concur that at 6400 the D500 is better resolving the lines, and I have no doubts you saw the impact of this in the real world.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 2, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> It's wrong.
> 
> I'm not sure what they did wrong, but it's usually one of two methods of getting the wrong answer.
> 
> ...


What he has done is to calculate the size of the Airy disk using the standard formula d/2 = 1.22*wavelength*f-number. Using green light of 500nm wavelength gives the values in his table.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 2, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> While you are correct to point out that other factors can and do limit resolution, and I absolutely believe that you saw this in real life at high ISOs, there's something wrong with one or both of those AP tests. They report the same exact resolution for both sensors at base ISO. Just comparing DPReview RAWs it's clear the 90D resolves significantly more detail at base ISO.
> 
> It looks to me like the article author(s) are just eye balling the charts and making a judgement call. Both articles cite the 16 mark as the resolution point for the cameras. But on the D500 chart lines are already starting to merge, while 90D lines remain distinct further than that even if they are experiencing color aliasing.
> 
> Again, this doesn't undermine your point. I would concur that at 6400 the D500 is better resolving the lines, and I have no doubts you saw the impact of this in the real world.


I agree with you. The AP results at base iso puzzled me too. The AP articles are useful where they show the degradation of resolution with increasing iso in the actual images of the charts' converging lines.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2022)

Bonich said:


> The lens never changes specifications.
> But the picture style you get WITHOUT changing shooting distance change to 1.6x focal length and (a little bit more than) one stop smaller aperture.
> Fact.


You seem to be saying that if you change the sensor from FF to APS-C but not the lens, zoom setting, or distance to subject then you get A resulting image with a narrower FOV (corresponding to a focal length 1.6x longer) AND a narrower aperture A little more than a stop you state, the math would put it at 1.3 stops). The former is true, the latter is not fact, it’s completely false.

Field of view is narrower because you’re sampling a smaller area of the image circle. Focal length doesn’t change. 

Aperture doesn’t change. If distance doesn’t change, the depth of field is actually (very) slightly shallower (because the smaller sensor has a smaller circle of confusion). It is only if you increase the distance to subject to match framing that the depth of field corresponds to a 1.3 stop narrower aperture. 

The smaller sensor means less total light collected, which means effectively 1.3 stops more noise. 

Hopefully I am misunderstanding your post. if not, it’s a good example of how pressing a shutter button for 40 years doesn’t confer technical understanding, anymore than someone who flips a light switch their whole lives necessarily knows how wiring actually works.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 2, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> While cell phones have had a devastating impact on camera sales in general, the industry faces another very real problem: the DSLRs and lenses of the mid-late 2010's were so highly evolved, and high performance, that there's little reason for a stills shooter to upgrade. The innovation on the video side is impressive. But on the stills side you could put together a DSLR kit that would serve every photographic need indefinitely.


Nikon has just officially discontinued the D500, arguably the best crop DSLR ever. https://nikonrumors.com/2022/02/01/the-nikon-d500-is-now-officially-discontinued.aspx/ I used one for over a year, incredible AF and superb IQ. I sold it because I prefer the R5.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 2, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Nikon has just officially discontinued the D500, arguably the best crop DSLR ever. https://nikonrumors.com/2022/02/01/the-nikon-d500-is-now-officially-discontinued.aspx/ I used one for over a year, incredible AF and superb IQ. I sold it because I prefer the R5.


I would prefer the R5 to. But someone could spend the next 10 years filling album after album with sports and wildlife shots from the D500. The shot they might miss for not having an R5, R3, Z9, A1, etc. would be comparatively rare.

It's not like the 2000's where sensor and feature upgrades seemed massive because the technology was young.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Feb 2, 2022)

As a crop camera uses a smaller part of the image circle, IBIS has much more space to move. So IBIS should be very strong when used with a full frame lens.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 2, 2022)

SteveC said:


> It wouldn't have to be a fifth lens _mount_.
> 
> They can simply produce lenses that trigger a full-frame camera's crop mode, just like an adapted EF-S lens will. (I want them adequately labeled, though.)


You are right that it wouldn't need to be a new physical mount but it is still another "special" lens in the RF lens ecosystem. Appropriate labeling is still a 5th lens product in marketing terms,

It would apply only to a focal range of 10-22mm for instance though. The roadmap RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM would be used on ff as is as well as APS-c sensors in crop mode.


----------



## bbasiaga (Feb 2, 2022)

definedphotography said:


> you'll be waiting a long time then. the battery life on MLCs is generally worse than their DSLR cousins, the prices of RF glass is generally more than EF equivalents and the RF cameras have also been priced higher than their DSLR equivalents.
> 
> All that said, I wouldn't give up my R5  Its been a fantastic improvement over the 5D IV.


MILC will get better with respect to battery life, but will never match DSLR. They are just doing so much more computing. Eventually batteries of higher capacity will get smaller, which will help, along with incremental improvements in chip efficiency. But honestly, battery life isn't as bad as it gets a rap for, unless you are using all the features at once like GPS, WIFI, etc. 


ncvarsity3 said:


> If it did all this and took the R5/6 battery grip. I probably couldn't preorder it fast enough lol


Could you imagine the nightmare that would occur on this and other forums if the R7 DIDN'T take a page from the other APSc bodies and make a slightly more compact body (which would preclude the use of the BG-R10 grip)?!?!?! It would be a bloodbath! 

The only thing I can think of that could achieve that level of critical scorn would be if it DID take a page from the other APSc cameras and make a slightly more compact body! 


-Brian


----------



## AlanF (Feb 2, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> I would prefer the R5 to. But someone could spend the next 10 years filling album after album with sports and wildlife shots from the D500. The shot they might miss for not having an R5, R3, Z9, A1, etc. would be comparatively rare.
> 
> It's not like the 2000's where sensor and feature upgrades seemed massive because the technology was young.


Very true.


----------



## cgc (Feb 2, 2022)

AlanF said:


> An f/1.8 lens will provide the same light intensity per unit area on the image at any focal length, which is why f-number is what we use for getiing exposure right. If you move back to 16 ft, the size of the duck decreases by 1.6x horizontally and vertically and so the total amount of light hitting it during exposure has gone down 1.6x1.6x. Blow up the image of the duck taken at 16 ft to the same size for viewing as the duck taken at 10 ft, and it will appear noisier.
> 
> The duck is the same size on both sensors and is being illuminated by the same lens. So, if both sensors are equally efficient, then there should be the same S/N for both.


Said with other words: when we "blow up" a FF image by 1.6x _we are in fact doing a crop_, ending on a FF sensor run as an APS-C one, with 2.56x less total light and the corresponding additional noise. So best to keep the FF body saving the steps back and getting the full light 

The former poster tried to argument that the amount of light was equal, once accounted for the changed depth of field and angle of view. Yes, the _exposure_ is the same (e.g. same Av values) but the sensor, as others have noticed, is 2.56 times smaller, so the effective light (once it is expanded to the print size) is 1.3 stops less. That also affects to midtones signal/ratio and overall IQ.

Theoretically it there exists the "systems equivalence" so, for example, we could build a 12-35 F1.4 four thirds lens (please forget about aspect ratio) providing those cameras the exact equivalent of a FF 24-70 F2.8 in all regards, including light capture ability (you simply keep your position and shot the 4:3 lens/camera halving the FF zoom and aperture values to get the exactly same photo with same amount of light and IQ). But wait a moment... it there exists such a lens? Will there someday exist a four thirds 14-35 F1 equivalent to the RF 28-70 F2?. And if somebody takes the challenge... will it be feasible?. I always use the same REAL example: the _"L-series"_ Olympus 14-35 F2 (more than 900 gr), which was the world's first F2 zoom, compared to a FF close peer EF 24-70 F4L IS, which only weights 600 gr and on top of that adds IS and more wide angle plus 1:2 macro. On the other side, digital medium format does not keeps a big advantage over FF because what it seems to be truly difficult is to manufacture big aperture lenses. Perhaps a 0.5 crop medium format would be more efficient mimicking FF F1.2 lenses (F2.4 there) and of course to make exotic F0.7 glass (only F1.4 there) but maybe not so much from F2.8 and on (F5.6 there).


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 2, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> Oh, sorry for not knowing that, as I haven't followed any R-series developments since I tried the EVFs in the R and Rp and found them unusable.



Give the EVF in the R5/R6 a chance, it's light years better than tech from say 2016 (Pen F, I'm talking to you here)

Refresh rates, contrast...much more like WYSIWYG. Some say it is fully there, some would say close but not quite. No matter that debate, all in all these are great cameras, even in less than competent hands.


----------



## maboleth (Feb 2, 2022)

Distinctly Average said:


> In my case I have worn out multiple 7 series bodies. My current 7d2 is nearing 800k shots. It simply cannot go on forever. The top dial is getting jumpy but other than that it is still working well. Quite a testament to how well Canon made that body. Hopefully it lasts until a suitable R comes out.



I'm not sure what is holding you to upgrade to 90d, in my case it's better in every possible way, except two things:

1. Body is not all metal (though metal-plated), but looks sturdier than R6 IMO.
2. You cannot deep-program AF point buttons. For example, both on my 7D/mk2 and 5d4 I mapped back AF-ON to be One Shot and * button to be Servo with separate AF points (Spot AF and Zone). You cannot go that deep on 90d. That was a massive blow for me, but I learned to overcome it by using shutter button for AF (default) and AF-ON mapped as a Servo switch.
3. No dual card slots (with CRAW and high-capacity cards, I don't care for that at all)

But that's where drawbacks end for me. Speaking of its AF module, I find it improved over 7D2 and much improved over 7D. It's on par with my 5D4, slightly less precise with 50mm f1.8 STM, but then again that lens isn't the most precise one and it's sharper on FF overall as it's not pushing the optics beyond normal levels. LiveView on the other hand rivals mirroless cameras. Super fast, super smart, face recognition with eye-find focus and Focus Peaking for manual lenses.

All in all, I have effectively moved from 5d4 to 90d. With a price of 1k euros, it's a steal for such a great and modern aps-c camera.


----------



## maboleth (Feb 2, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Give the EVF in the R5/R6 a chance, it's light years better than tech from say 2016 (Pen F, I'm talking to you here)
> 
> Refresh rates, contrast...much more like WYSIWYG. Some say it is fully there, some would not close but not quite. No matter that debate, all in all these are great cameras, even in less than competent hands.



EVF of R6 is great, but I guess as someone that grew up on mechanical Nikon FM2/3a cameras, I cannot treat EVF as "normal" viewfinder. What I see in EVF is not the scene I see with my eyes (OVF). That can have ups and downs, of course. One of the ups is that what you see on EVF is 99% what you will get. But in a sense, EVF is sort of virtual-reality-viewfinder and I totally understand people that just dislike it no matter what.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Feb 3, 2022)

I want to jump in here but don't know exactly where to start...let's try these two:

=====

maboleth, you write: 

"One of the ups is that what you see on EVF is 99% what you will get. But in a sense, EVF is sort of virtual-reality-viewfinder..."

I need some help understanding your comment here! (no snark intended); is it just habit that draws you to OVFs?

=====

In this thread and one or two other rather recent threads here, there's been lots of talk about size and ergonomics and sensors etc. 

Posters talk about the 90D and its crop sensor...there's even a table or three listing this property or those data (again, no snark here--I like tables full'o data!)...somewhere I saw one or two posts where someone talks about the 90D and mirrorless as well and wonders about the R7 etc...with ZERO mention of Canon's M format!

If anybody cares, I've posted here on CR about the M format...and lately, in particular, about the M6MkII/(adapted)EF 70-300 IS II combination.

I've done the vast majority of my wildlife shooting with a 5DMkIII body and various telephoto zooms (including the Canon 100-400 IS II)...and indeed its old-school viewfinder is great and comfortable at the same time.

But the M6MkII/(adapted)EF 70-300 IS II combination, with either of the EVFs attached...is pretty darn good.

Pretty darn good.

And of course the sensors inside both the M6MkII and the 90D? The same.

...smh


----------



## unfocused (Feb 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> You seem to be saying that if you change the sensor from FF to APS-C but not the lens, zoom setting, or distance to subject then you get A resulting image with a narrower FOV (corresponding to a focal length 1.6x longer) AND a narrower aperture A little more than a stop you state, the math would put it at 1.3 stops). The former is true, the latter is not fact, it’s completely false.
> 
> Field of view is narrower because you’re sampling a smaller area of the image circle. Focal length doesn’t change.
> 
> ...


I can't believe that after all these years and endless debates we are on the same page. I'm glad you finally came around.  

Seriously, I think we have both been correct just not necessarily communicating clearly. 

However, I do question one statement (or at least want to clarify it). 

_"The smaller sensor means less total light collected, which means effectively 1.3 stops more noise."_

I would say that this is only true because the smaller sensor is likely to have the pixels more tightly packed into the sensor. In other words, the size of the sensor isn't the determining factor, it's the size of the pixels. The 45mp R5 does not gather any less light when cropped to APS-C size. Of course it is no longer 45mp, but about 17.5 mp. Whether you are shooting in 1.6 crop mode or full frame mode and cropping to 17.5 mp, the light gathering is going to be the same. 

Now, I readily admit that I don't speak the same techno-speak as others, but you get the idea. 

I think this is worth clarifying because some of the "experts" on this forum make fuzzy statements that can easily imply that the mere size of the sensor means more light gathering.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I would say that this is only true because the smaller sensor is likely to have the pixels more tightly packed into the sensor. In other words, the size of the sensor isn't the determining factor, it's the size of the pixels. The 45mp R5 does not gather any less light when cropped to APS-C size.


Of course it does. Whether you use a lens which only projects an APS-C imaging circle, or crop to APS-C in post, you are not gathering/using as many photons. And this changes the final SNR for the image and the appearance of noise for a given view size.



unfocused said:


> I think this is worth clarifying because some of the "experts" on this forum make fuzzy statements that can easily imply that the mere size of the sensor means more light gathering.


The size of the sensor does impact light gathering, and a larger sensor means more light gathering, assuming the same light intensity per square mm (i.e. same exposure). So long as gapless microlenses are present, pixel size is practically irrelevant in the sizes we see on DSLRs and MILCs. (I haven't investigated, and cannot rule out, the possibility that size becomes a factor at even smaller pixel pitches.)


----------



## Deleted (Feb 3, 2022)

maboleth said:


> I'm not sure what is holding you to upgrade to 90d, in my case it's better in every possible way, except two things:
> 
> 1. Body is not all metal (though metal-plated), but looks sturdier than R6 IMO.
> 2. You cannot deep-program AF point buttons. For example, both on my 7D/mk2 and 5d4 I mapped back AF-ON to be One Shot and * button to be Servo with separate AF points (Spot AF and Zone). You cannot go that deep on 90d. That was a massive blow for me, but I learned to overcome it by using shutter button for AF (default) and AF-ON mapped as a Servo switch.
> ...


I have a 90D, well I own one I should say. My daughter borrowed it some time back.

For me, the ergonomics do not match up to the 7D2. With a longish lens nor does the AF. I spent time using them side by side and for much of the subjects the 90D struggled more than the 7D2. The 90D is a great all rounder, but the 7D2 is better for fast subjects like swift, terns etc imo. If I ever do get my 90D out of the clutches of my youngest, it will replace my 80D as a macro body.

I do own a D500 too, won in a competition. The comparison with the 7D2 is a hard one. They are much closer than the specs suggest. Both have their advantages and drawbacks. In certain conditions with certain subjects the AF worked better on one vs the other. Ergonomics of the 7D2 were better, but I have been a canon shooter for many moons so that in part could be muscle memory. The 7D2 is certainly more programmable and having three buttons on the back for AF control vs the one on the D500 makes a big difference.

Why Nikon decided their lens mounts should not follow lefty loosey, righty tighty is beyond me. Parobably some marketing twonk trying to be different from the flock. Nothing a damn good flogging would not have sorted out.

If rumours are true I hopefully will not have long to wait for a suitable RF crop body. Hopefully it will live up to expectations. It really is a tough segment with very critical users. One huge advantage of an EVF is for video. I have shot some handheld video (some terrible examples here - https://youtube.com/channel/UCVfyNa6n6eaxlQAC6Ye40Sw showing I have a lot to learn) and it is not easy using a rear screen. I look forward to being able to use the EVF for that alone. When I used an R5 last year there were a few situations where it made life trick for stills. For instance tracking fast birds (hobby in this case) from a bright background to dark reeds the EVF was effectively unusable until it adjusted. You had yo sort of imagine where the bird was and hope it hadn’t strayed too much off path. Amazingly, despite the EVF being black, the focus tracking kept up as did the metering. Also found my shooting style of tracking things for a long time, awaiting very specific behaviour, really was a huge battery drain.Anout 4-1 ratio R5 - 7D2. I can deal with that though.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 3, 2022)

maboleth said:


> EVF of R6 is great, but I guess as someone that grew up on mechanical Nikon FM2/3a cameras, I cannot treat EVF as "normal" viewfinder. What I see in EVF is not the scene I see with my eyes (OVF). That can have ups and downs, of course. One of the ups is that what you see on EVF is 99% what you will get. But in a sense, EVF is sort of virtual-reality-viewfinder and I totally understand people that just dislike it no matter what.


I completely agree with that statement as I too grew up with those fantastic Nikon film bodies and even older RB67s. It's not true wysiwyg but my point was how they are better than ever and not the hold up for some as a reason to avoid mirrorless like I and others had in our disappointment with lesser EVF's.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 3, 2022)

AlanF said:


> What he has done is to calculate the size of the Airy disk using the standard formula d/2 = 1.22*wavelength*f-number. Using green light of 500nm wavelength gives the values in his table.



Diffraction limit for the Rayleigh criterion:
cycles/mm = 1/(1.22 * wavelength * f-number)

Converting from number of cycles per unit of size to size of each cycle:

1/cycle size = 1/(1.22 * wavelength * f-number)

Solving for f-number:

f-number = cycle size/(1.22 * wavelength)

Normally, it would take 2-pixels to resolve one cycle (Nyquist). However, because the sensors we use have pixels that are not of zero size, because they are Bayer sensors and thus require demosaicing, and because they usually have AA filters, I like to use 3 pixels per cycle, rather than 2 pixels per cycle, to compensate for the loss of resolving power from these sources.

f-number = (3 * pixel size)/(1.22 * wavelength) for the Rayleigh criterion

If we plug in your numbers (500nm light and the pixels from the 90D), we get:

f-number = (3 * 3.2 microns)/(1.22 * 0.5 microns) = 15.7 (f-number for the Rayleigh criterion on 3.2 micron pixels using 3 pixels per cycle)

If you prefer extinction instead of Rayleigh, this formula works:
f-number = (3 * pixel size)/(1.00 * wavelength) for MTF=0 (extinction)


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 3, 2022)

Distinctly Average said:


> When I used an R5 last year there were a few situations where it made life trick for stills. For instance tracking fast birds (hobby in this case) from a bright background to dark reeds the EVF was effectively unusable until it adjusted. You had yo sort of imagine where the bird was and hope it hadn’t strayed too much off path. Amazingly, despite the EVF being black, the focus tracking kept up as did the metering. Also found my shooting style of tracking things for a long time, awaiting very specific behaviour, really was a huge battery drain.Anout 4-1 ratio R5 - 7D2. I can deal with that though.


Dang. Those things, the lack of dynamic range in the viewfinder, and viewfinder lag are exactly what make EVFs unusable for me. Sounds like those are not fixed in the R5, despite the claims of others.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 3, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> MILC will get better with respect to battery life, but will never match DSLR. They are just doing so much more computing. Eventually batteries of higher capacity will get smaller, which will help, along with incremental improvements in chip efficiency.


There hasn't been a significant change from Li-ion battery technology in small devices for some time unfortunately. Canon has been able to fit a little more capacity in the same LP-E6 form factor but hasn't done the same for the LP-E19 form factor with the R3 release which is surprising.

Chip (and algorithm) efficiency is the main way to improve battery life as Apple's M1 and RISC/Arm have demonstrated. Sony does appear to be in the lead here for camera systems as for approximately the same battery capacity, they have greater CIPA ratings than Canon does (with smaller bodies either managing heat better or prematurely cooking their chips).

Mirrorless will be the same or better battery life than DLSR using live view opposed to OVF only. You may ask why someone would use a DLSR predominately via live view but the 1DXiii does have better better AF tracking via live view and 20fps vs OVF even if the ergonomics aren't great.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 3, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> Normally, it would take 2-pixels to resolve one cycle (Nyquist). However, because the sensors we use have pixels that are not of zero size, because they are Bayer sensors and thus require demosaicing, and because they usually have AA filters, I like to use 3 pixels per cycle, rather than 2 pixels per cycle, to compensate for the loss of resolving power from these sources.


I doubt it's that high based on extinction resolutions published by Imaging Resource when they used to do that level of testing. But I do agree it has to be >2. In my own estimations I tend to use 2.2, though I admit I grabbed that value from the domain of audio sampling. I have not performed, nor seen, any tests that would firmly establish if it should be 2.2 or 3 or 2.5...

Whatever the exact numbers are, there's something to this because in the real world the diffraction limit is observably not a hard and fast limit. Higher pixel pitch cameras continue to resolve more detail a couple stops beyond their supposed limit. I'm sure target contrast, and how steeply it falls off towards the airy disk edge, comes into play as well because if there's enough contrast the detail can still be resolved.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 3, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> Of course it does. Whether you use a lens which only projects an APS-C imaging circle, or crop to APS-C in post, you are not gathering/using as many photons. And this changes the final SNR for the image and the appearance of noise for a given view size.


The operative term here is "for a given view size."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I can't believe that after all these years and endless debates we are on the same page. I'm glad you finally came around.
> 
> Seriously, I think we have both been correct just not necessarily communicating clearly.


Well, I haven’t changed my correct statements to false ones and the concept of equivalence hasn’t changed. So if you think we’re on the same page now……



unfocused said:


> However, I do question one statement (or at least want to clarify it).
> 
> _"The smaller sensor means less total light collected, which means effectively 1.3 stops more noise."_
> 
> ...


Ladies and gentlemen, we now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming.

No. It has nothing to do with pixel density. However, you have changed the terms. I was talking about comparing a FF picture to an APS-C picture. You are talking about cropping a FF image to the area of an APS-C image. In that case, the images, FoV, DoF and noise are identical.



unfocused said:


> I think this is worth clarifying because some of the "experts" on this forum make fuzzy statements that can easily imply that the mere size of the sensor means more light gathering.


There’s nothing fuzzy about it, it’s basic physics. A larger sensor gathers more light. The oft-used analogy is water – put a teacup and a bucket out in the same rainfall (the light coming from the scene), leave them out for the same amount of time (shutter speed), and the bucket will collect more water than the teacup. As I said to someone else, if you argue with physics, physics will win. Every. Single. Time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> The operative term here is "for a given view size."


Of course. I’m not going to compare an image viewed on my iPhone with an image viewed on my 34” 5K display. If you want to do something nonsensical like that, go right ahead.

If you _need_ to do something like that (albeit in a less extreme manner) to support your argument, then your argument was bogus to begin with.


----------



## jordanisaak (Feb 3, 2022)

josephandrews222 said:


> I want to jump in here but don't know exactly where to start...let's try these two:
> 
> =====
> 
> ...


I think part of it is that the M bodies tend to be more lightweight and less ruggedly built than the corresponding DSLRs. Shorter battery life comes along with that tradeoff as well, and handling with larger lenses is affected too, plus the need for an adapter for those large lenses, introducing another thing to break (or leak if it gets wet). If I was in a position where I needed to count on my camera in less than ideal conditions, I would probably steer clear of the M series in general.

In reality I'm a (mostly) fair weather amateur and am not interested in bird or wildlife photography. My only body is an M50 and I've been happy with the tradeoffs of the M system so far. But I get why many photographers wouldn't be.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, I haven’t changed my statements, and the concept of equivalence hasn’t changed. So if you think we’re the same page now……
> 
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, we now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming.
> ...


1) I have no interest or desire to go down that equivalence rabbit hole. Everyone has explained their viewpoint a thousand times over and I don't care to take the bait. I take a narrower view of equivalence than others do. I prefer to use it exclusively to describe exposure equivalence. I think it can confuse people to expand it to cover depth of field at different sensor sizes. You disagree. I understand your point of view. Enough said.

2) Although you were talking about comparing a FF picture to an APS-C picture of the same size, that was not stated. Yes, of course, if you add the variable of enlarging an image to the same size and compare one taken with the full frame vs. one taken with a cropped frame (either by using a smaller sensor or by cropping the image in post) the image with the greater enlargement will show more noise.* No disagreement there. 

3) Using your bucket example. If instead of a single bucket, you have a teacup inside a bucket and a teacup sitting alone, you will end up with the same amount of water in both the APS-C teacup and the "cropped" teacup within the full-frame bucket (assuming of course that there is no overflow from the gallon bucket). 

*asterisk added because sensor performance has improved so much in the last few years that we are moving more and more into differences that are theoretical rather than visible.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 3, 2022)

As entertaining as it is (not) to repeat the same pedantic discussions for the millionth time on this forum, I wonder if those who are actually interested in an R7 might be willing to express their opinion. (@Michael Clark?)

If an R7 is essentially an R6 with a crop sensor and comes in at close to the price point of the R6 (give or take $100 or so) would such a body meet the needs/desires of those who want an R7? I am unfamiliar with the R6, but it seems like the main differences between the R5 and the R6 (aside from the sensors) are the dual SD slots and the mode dial. While a CFExpress slot might be preferred by some, I suspect Canon might opt for dual SD slots instead.

It strikes me that Canon will need to balance features and price point to reach a target that is affordable enough, yet feature rich enough, to attract sufficient buyers to make it profitable. I suspect that a mirrorless 90D (R90?) would not be attractive to those who want a crop sensor R. So I wonder if a crop sensor R6 with a sensor resolution in the 90D range, would tick enough boxes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> 1) I have no interest or desire to go down that equivalence rabbit hole. Everyone has explained their viewpoint a thousand times over and I don't care to take the bait. I take a narrower view of equivalence than others do. I prefer to use it exclusively to describe exposure equivalence. I think it can confuse people to expand it to cover depth of field at different sensor sizes. You disagree. I understand your point of view. Enough said.


That’s like saying you have a narrower definition of a house, you only care about the front door. Your understanding of that door may be interesting, but if you only describe the door you aren’t talking about a house.

Equivalence is a formal concept in photography. It’s not a point of view. It’s not a rabbit hole. You trying to limit the concept to apply only to equivalent field of view is fine, but then you’re not talking about equivalence anymore.

I agree that the concept of equivalence is confusing to some people. So are concepts in subject areas like general relativity, genetics and macroeconomics. My approach is to try and explain the concepts factually and correctly when it’s clear people are wrong about them. Your approach would apparently be to limit the discussions to space but not time, pretend all heritable traits are monogenic and Mendelian, and discuss only inflation but not GDP or unemployment as driving factors.

In my experience, people who ‘take a narrower viewpoint’ of a complicated concept usually do so because they don’t really understand the full concept. Rather than try to expand their understanding to encompass the full concept, they prefer to try to limit discussions of the concept to the part of it they do understand.

A reductionist approach in teaching a concept is different. When I took macroeconomics (which was a long time ago, think ‘Reaganomics’), we learned about GDP, then later about unemployment, then about inflation. Then we discussed how they interact to drive economies. The professor didn’t just walk out and explain inflation, then drop the mic and pass out the final.



unfocused said:


> 2) Although you were talking about comparing a FF picture to an APS-C picture of the same size, that was not stated. Yes, of course, if you add the variable of enlarging an image to the same size and compare one taken with the full frame vs. one taken with a cropped frame (either by using a smaller sensor or by cropping the image in post) the image with the greater enlargement will show more noise.* No disagreement there.


I stated, “…change the sensor from FF to APS-C but not the lens, zoom setting, or distance to subject.” Why would you somehow assume I also meant, “…and crop the image,” if I didn’t state that. The only reason I can see is to ‘prove your point’. Well, your point was analogous to proving that water is wet, so…ummmm…well done? 



unfocused said:


> 3) Using your bucket example. If instead of a single bucket, you have a teacup inside a bucket and a teacup sitting alone, you will end up with the same amount of water in both the APS-C teacup and the "cropped" teacup within the full-frame bucket (assuming of course that there is no overflow from the gallon bucket).


Of course, but that was never part of the debate until you set up that pin for you to knock down. And guess what? The water filling the cropped teacup inside that bucket will be wet.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> As entertaining as it is (not) to repeat the same pedantic discussions for the millionth time on this forum


To recap, someone made a statement that was factually incorrect. I replied to that statement with the correct facts.

Then you replied to my post, but made an unwarranted assumption and rephrased my argument to then make your own correct statement that was never in doubt, and doubled down with your own personal definition of equivalence.

Then you complain about rabbit holes and pedantry.

Shall I fetch you a mirror, sir?


----------



## Aussie shooter (Feb 3, 2022)

Hopefully they make it equally as good value as the 7d2 was. Otherwise you may as well get an rt and crop as needed if it does come in at around 3k Aus then I may consider it to pair with the R6


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Feb 3, 2022)

The worst case would be if Canon only offered expensive mirrorless cameras from $2,000 up with an EVF and some cheaper mirrorless cameras which might not have an EVF and maybe not even IBIS. 

As some third lens manufacturers build lenses for Canon mounts, I wonder if the other way around would be legally possible. Could a third party camera manufacturer from China for example built a mirrorless camera with an RF mount? If the male side of the mount can be copied, why not the female side? That would finally put some pressure on Canon.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 3, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The worst case would be if Canon only offered expensive mirrorless cameras from $2,000 up with an EVF and some cheaper mirrorless cameras which might not have an EVF and maybe not even IBIS.
> 
> As some third lens manufacturers build lenses for Canon mounts, I wonder if the other way around would be legally possible. Could a third party camera manufacturer from China for example built a mirrorless camera with an RF mount? If the male side of the mount can be copied, why not the female side? That would finally put some pressure on Canon.


You like Red did with their Komodo? https://www.red.com/komodo


----------



## mehaue (Feb 3, 2022)

it's pretty obvious that there will be a high MP count full-frame sensor (and body) and a new aps-c sensor (and body) based on that - meaning if we see a high MP full full-frameframe sensor in the 70ish megapixel range that would translate to a 43ish megapixel aps-c sensor. It's how they manufacture chips, depending on the yield of the material you can also use faulty full-frame sensors and use them as aps-c sensors if they have quality issues in the areas not present in aps-c format.
There is also a high chance that the aps-c camera (r7) will have 8k recording capabilities due to its sensor size - of course with all the usual canon cripple to protect the cinema line, but that will still be an amazing camera not only for birding but also for macro work - I'm intrigued!


----------



## AlanF (Feb 3, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The worst case would be if Canon only offered expensive mirrorless cameras from $2,000 up with an EVF and some cheaper mirrorless cameras which might not have an EVF and maybe not even IBIS.
> 
> As some third lens manufacturers build lenses for Canon mounts, I wonder if the other way around would be legally possible. Could a third party camera manufacturer from China for example built a mirrorless camera with an RF mount? If the male side of the mount can be copied, why not the female side? That would finally put some pressure on Canon.


My crude knowledge of patent law is that you can patent a device but you can't patent to prevent others making accessories to fit on that device. That is for here, you can patent a specific mount for your camera and stop others using that mount, but you can't stop others making lenses to fit on it. I think the patent on the EF mount expired more than 10 years ago, but the RF is in early days of its patent life.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Feb 3, 2022)

entoman said:


> I agree that the 45MP of the R5 is a nice sweet spot for a FF camera (and it's a very good sensor). The point I was trying to make is that in order for the "R7" to have appeal to wildlife photographers, it needs to offer *more* resolution than a cropped R5 can produce. Otherwise, what would be the benefit of getting the "R7"?


Cost and size/weight.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Feb 3, 2022)

maboleth said:


> EVF of R6 is great, but I guess as someone that grew up on mechanical Nikon FM2/3a cameras, I cannot treat EVF as "normal" viewfinder. What I see in EVF is not the scene I see with my eyes (OVF). That can have ups and downs, of course. One of the ups is that what you see on EVF is 99% what you will get. But in a sense, EVF is sort of virtual-reality-viewfinder and I totally understand people that just dislike it no matter what.


Except EVF gives you the real lens aperture wide open and OVF does not. Seeing what you see with your eyes through the camera is less important for photo composition than seeing what the camera does, because the camera is what makes the photo.


----------



## Deleted (Feb 3, 2022)

twoheadedboy said:


> Except EVF gives you the real lens aperture wide open and OVF does not. Seeing what you see with your eyes through the camera is less important for photo composition than seeing what the camera does, because the camera is what makes the photo.


That depends on the situation. Once the correct exposure is known it becomes important to be able to track a subject for long periods, to be able to catch the moment. If the viewfinder is dark then it becomes harder. It also becomes challenging on the battery and the eyes. When following a subject for a long time, OVF has advantages.

Here is a prime example. I had to wait a long time, days in fact, to get a term tossing a fish in the right place and in decent light. I used an OVF for this. I have tried using an EVF albeit an earlier generator of camera and the experience was far from ideal. The R5 is leaps ahead, but for this type of photography is more challenging than OVF.


Same for this shot. I wanted the shake dry moment and an OVF was the better tool for the job.


----------



## entoman (Feb 3, 2022)

twoheadedboy said:


> Cost and size/weight.


Very true, but for me personally, I would want a minimum of 24MP. Given that Canon already have a tried and tested good quality 33MP APS-C sensor, together with the fact that they've had plenty of time since then to develop even better sensors, I think we are probably looking at a minimum of 28MP for the "R7", whether it is a high performance sports/wildlife model, or just a Rebel replacement.


----------



## entoman (Feb 3, 2022)

Distinctly Average said:


> That depends on the situation. Once the correct exposure is known it becomes important to be able to track a subject for long periods, to be able to catch the moment. If the viewfinder is dark then it becomes harder. It also becomes challenging on the battery and the eyes. When following a subject for a long time, OVF has advantages.
> 
> Here is a prime example. I had to wait a long time, days in fact, to get a term tossing a fish in the right place and in decent light. I used an OVF for this. I have tried using an EVF albeit an earlier generator of camera and the experience was far from ideal. The R5 is leaps ahead, but for this type of photography is more challenging than OVF.
> 
> ...


Great shots, and I agree entirely. For 95% of photography the EVF on my R5 is absolutely fine, but if you need the camera to be instantly ready for action, or if you are going to wait for minutes at a time with finger poised over the shutter button waiting for the perfect moment, an OVF beats an EVF every time. I've got an R5 and I'm pretty happy with it, but if Canon had put that sensor into a DSLR with IBIS and a fast burst speed, I'd have chosen the DSLR instead.

I find very little difference in my keeper rate for BIF between the R5 and my 5DMkiv, in terms of AF, although the faster burst speeds and lighter weight of the R5 tend to compensate for the issues described above.


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> As entertaining as it is (not) to repeat the same pedantic discussions for the millionth time on this forum, I wonder if those who are actually interested in an R7 might be willing to express their opinion. (@Michael Clark?)
> 
> If an R7 is essentially an R6 with a crop sensor and comes in at close to the price point of the R6 (give or take $100 or so) would such a body meet the needs/desires of those who want an R7? I am unfamiliar with the R6, but it seems like the main differences between the R5 and the R6 (aside from the sensors) are the dual SD slots and the mode dial. While a CFExpress slot might be preferred by some, I suspect Canon might opt for dual SD slots instead.
> 
> It strikes me that Canon will need to balance features and price point to reach a target that is affordable enough, yet feature rich enough, to attract sufficient buyers to make it profitable. I suspect that a mirrorless 90D (R90?) would not be attractive to those who want a crop sensor R. So I wonder if a crop sensor R6 with a sensor resolution in the 90D range, would tick enough boxes.


I'm interested in an R7 to replace my 7D and I've handled an R6 enough to know that I could live with its ergonomics and speed. Regarding price point, I would expect an R7 to be $500 less than the R6 and the R6 seems $500 overpriced. Regarding the sensor, 24MP would be enough but I want exceptional high ISO performance for an APS-C camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

twoheadedboy said:


> Except EVF gives you the real lens aperture wide open and OVF does not. Seeing what you see with your eyes through the camera is less important for photo composition than seeing what the camera does, because the camera is what makes the photo.


Does your EVF show 14-bit images? Mine doesn’t, despite Canon’s effort with ‘OVF simulation mode’ in my R3 (which, by the way, isn’t compatible with DoF Preview mode).

So really, neither type shows ‘what the camera sees’ since an OVF csn show more exposure latitude than the camera can capture, and an EVF shows less exposure latitude than could be present in a 14-bit RAW file. You really only see what the camera sees if you shoot in-camera JPGs.

Also, with lenses like the RF 14-35/4L, 16/2.8 and 24-240, the EVF will show an image with forced distortion correction. When I shoot at 14mm on the 14-35/4 and process the RAW file with DxO PhotoLab, the resulting image has an FoV of about 13.5mm, meaning my EVF is cropping out the edges of my final picture and making fully accurate composition impossible.

The bottom line is claiming an EVF is better because it shows you what the camera sees is false.

Personally, I didn’t like the image quality displayed in the EVF on my EOS R, especially coming from the excellent OVF of the 1D X. The image quality displayed in the EVF on the R3 is definitely better, but I still prefer that of a good OVF.

However, I like the convenience of the EVF. Being able to see a lot of relevant information overlayed, or none at the touch of a button. Being able to literally see in the dark to compose a shot that will be taken with high ISO.

So overall, I prefer the EVF of my R3 to the OVF of my 1D X.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 3, 2022)

Distinctly Average said:


> That depends on the situation. Once the correct exposure is known it becomes important to be able to track a subject for long periods, to be able to catch the moment. If the viewfinder is dark then it becomes harder. It also becomes challenging on the battery and the eyes. When following a subject for a long time, OVF has advantages.
> 
> Here is a prime example. I had to wait a long time, days in fact, to get a term tossing a fish in the right place and in decent light. I used an OVF for this. I have tried using an EVF albeit an earlier generator of camera and the experience was far from ideal. The R5 is leaps ahead, but for this type of photography is more challenging than OVF.
> 
> ...


Superb photos! How did you set up the R5 when you found the EVF difficult to cope with changing light? I always use full manual control for BIF or DIF so the exposure doesn't change with the background illumination as I pan. By the way, I agree with you about the daftness of Nikon using a left hand action for fitting lenses on to bodies - for just about everything else in life, from turning on radiators, turning screws, screwing on bottle caps, manual cranking a veteran car, winding up a clock, to the apex of technology, putting a lens on every other camera body, its a Right Handed twist.


----------



## entoman (Feb 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> As entertaining as it is (not) to repeat the same pedantic discussions for the millionth time on this forum, I wonder if those who are actually interested in an R7 might be willing to express their opinion. (@Michael Clark?)
> 
> If an R7 is essentially an R6 with a crop sensor and comes in at close to the price point of the R6 (give or take $100 or so) would such a body meet the needs/desires of those who want an R7? I am unfamiliar with the R6, but it seems like the main differences between the R5 and the R6 (aside from the sensors) are the dual SD slots and the mode dial. While a CFExpress slot might be preferred by some, I suspect Canon might opt for dual SD slots instead.
> 
> It strikes me that Canon will need to balance features and price point to reach a target that is affordable enough, yet feature rich enough, to attract sufficient buyers to make it profitable. I suspect that a mirrorless 90D (R90?) would not be attractive to those who want a crop sensor R. So I wonder if a crop sensor R6 with a sensor resolution in the 90D range, would tick enough boxes.


For context, I'm a prospective buyer of an R7, as a second body to my R5 (third body if you include my 5DMkiv). I photograph wildlife including BIF, insects, landscapes and nature in general. I only rarely shoot sports. I don't shoot video.

What I'd personally like to have is:
28MP
5, 10, 20 fps all with electronic shutter
5.7K EVF with instant startup and no blackout
2 CFE-B slots
Ability to share battery grip with R5/R6
Same AF tech as R5, but more intelligent AI that dispenses with need for focus cases
Body shell based on R5 or R6
Panasonic-style tilt/flippy screen
Ability to assign a button to instant exposure-bracketing

Price? - If they got it absolutely right, I'd go to £3000.


----------



## Deleted (Feb 3, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Superb photos! How did you set up the R5 when you found the EVF difficult to cope with changing light? I always use full manual control for BIF or DIF so the exposure doesn't change with the background illumination as I pan. By the way, I agree with you about the daftness of Nikon using a left hand action for fitting lenses on to bodies - for just about everything else in life, from turning on radiators, turning screws, screwing on bottle caps, manual cranking a veteran car, winding up a clock, to the apex of technology, putting a lens on every other camera body, its a Right Handed twist.


Thanks.

I was in manual for those. Normally I shoot manual with auto iso but for backlit shots cameras really get confused as I am sure you know. I only had the camera for a few hours and as it was borrowed I didn’t want to fiddle too much. It was a very good experience overall, certainly better than the A9 I used a few weeks before. I just didn’t get on with the A9, technological marvel, but ergonomically lacking.


----------



## entoman (Feb 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Does your EVF show 14-bit images? Mine doesn’t, despite Canon’s effort with ‘OVF simulation mode’ in my R3 (which, by the way, isn’t compatible with DoF Preview mode).
> 
> So really, neither type shows ‘what the camera sees’ since an OVF csn show more exposure latitude than the camera can capture, and an EVF shows less exposure latitude than could be present in a 14-bit RAW file. You really only see what the camera sees if you shoot in-camera JPGs.
> 
> ...


Agree. I've been slammed here many times for suggesting that "WYSIWYG" is over-hyped. I find it to be unreliable as the human eye (and the auto EVF brightness setting) automatically adjust to the brightness of the EVF, misleading me about what the final file will look like on the Mac (which is calibrated). The contrast of an EVF is higher than the output file, and the resolution on most EVFs is coarse compared to a good OVF. In most situations I prefer the OVF on my 5DMkiv to the EVF on my R5. The exception is when working in poor light, when the boosted light level of the EVF is advantageous.

But, overall, I still prefer the R5, due to the many other advantages is has over the 5D4.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

entoman said:


> What I'd personally like to have is:
> 28MP
> 5, 10, 20 fps all with electronic shutter
> 5.7K EVF with instant startup and no blackout
> ...


If Canon makes that exact camera, I think it will be in a reality where you can use it to shoot PIF (pigs in flight).


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 3, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> Would be nice to see Canon release a 200-600 or 200-500 sorta lens for $1500, though. That would be a great middleground between the RF 600/800, 100-400, and 100-500.


Only if it is as good as the Nikon. The Sony had fast AF but I don’t want a 300mm on my 600mm just because the subject is too close for its liking.


----------



## lote82 (Feb 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, I haven’t changed my correct statements to false ones and the concept of equivalence hasn’t changed. So if you think we’re on the same page now……
> 
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, we now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming.
> ...


I think neuroanatomist is meaning gathered light on the whole(!) sensor.
Whereas unfocused is meaning gathered light on final(!) image.

To give an example:
If you take a photo at same distance, with same (FF)lens, one with APS-C and one with FF camera, you'll get two different images.

Because the sensor on APS-C is smaller, it is gathering less light than FF sensor. But if you crop FF image down to APS-C size (to get comparable final images!), the amount of light is also "cropped". In the end both final(!) images will have "nearly" the same amount of light.

Or am I wrong?

In real life you rather compare pictures than sensors!
At least I prefer real images than theoretical amount of light on a sensor.


----------



## entoman (Feb 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> If Canon makes that exact camera, I think it will be in a reality where you can use it to shoot PIF (pigs in flight).


I can dream.....

*Equivalence*: I agree with your reply to _unfocused_. The problem is that it is a subject that many find complex so they turn away from it. Many people here may be very intelligent and experts in their own fields, but unable to grasp particular subjects that are alien to them. The solution for those who do understand it fully, is to explain it courteously *and* in simple terms. Experts often fail in communication because they make a subject sound even more complicated than it is in reality.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

lote82 said:


> I think neuroanatomist is meaning gathered light on the whole(!) sensor.
> While unfocused is meaning gathered light on final(!) image.
> 
> To give an example:
> ...


Exactly right.

In practice, it really depends on your use case. If you’re talking about a portrait, you’d probably match framing by moving or zooming – headshot vs. headshot not eyes-and-nose shot. The FF gathers more light.

If you’re focal length limited, you’re probably going to crop the FF image down (or crop both but crop the FF deeper). Cropped to match framing, same image and same light gathered. There’s no difference between cropping in post to the framing of a smaller sensor and just using a smaller sensor. That’s why it makes sense to call it a ‘crop factor’ and not a ‘focal length multiplier’.

I think only a small fraction of photography is really focal length limited, but that fraction is disproportionately represented on this forum. Regardless, once you understand the principles they apply across the board. Where some people get into trouble is applying a limited understanding of the principles to use cases where their limited understanding does not apply. A limited understanding can still be correct sometimes, just like a stopped analog clock shows the correct time twice a day.


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> As entertaining as it is (not) to repeat the same pedantic discussions for the millionth time on this forum, I wonder if those who are actually interested in an R7 might be willing to express their opinion. (@Michael Clark?)
> 
> If an R7 is essentially an R6 with a crop sensor and comes in at close to the price point of the R6 (give or take $100 or so) would such a body meet the needs/desires of those who want an R7? I am unfamiliar with the R6, but it seems like the main differences between the R5 and the R6 (aside from the sensors) are the dual SD slots and the mode dial. While a CFExpress slot might be preferred by some, I suspect Canon might opt for dual SD slots instead.
> 
> It strikes me that Canon will need to balance features and price point to reach a target that is affordable enough, yet feature rich enough, to attract sufficient buyers to make it profitable. I suspect that a mirrorless 90D (R90?) would not be attractive to those who want a crop sensor R. So I wonder if a crop sensor R6 with a sensor resolution in the 90D range, would tick enough boxes.


I would be interested in an R7 - and would probably sell my R6 - if, and when it becomes available, as long as it has similar AF and tracking capabilities, and hopefully comes in at a few hundred dollars less. I don't need 20 FPs, 10-12 is plenty, I don't want CFExpress, but do want two SD slots. I do want 24 MP, and the main reason I would prefer the R7 is for the greater "reach". I bought the new RF 100-400 lens and it will serve my needs much better on a crop camera with more pixels and greater pixel density for the somewhat limited wildlife photography that I do - that has become more and more of what I shoot compared to even a couple years ago. The R6's 20 MP is more than good enough for landscapes, but as I am an extreme amatuer when it comes to wildlife and BIF, I am a great distance from my subjects most of the time as I am not in a bind, nor dressed up in camaflouge laying on my belly. My other main photographic subject is flowers and a crop camera gives me much better results as I usually need more (not less) DOF at the desired distances I usually shoot from the flowers.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 3, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> I doubt it's that high based on extinction resolutions published by Imaging Resource when they used to do that level of testing. But I do agree it has to be >2. In my own estimations I tend to use 2.2, though I admit I grabbed that value from the domain of audio sampling. I have not performed, nor seen, any tests that would firmly establish if it should be 2.2 or 3 or 2.5...
> 
> Whatever the exact numbers are, there's something to this because in the real world the diffraction limit is observably not a hard and fast limit. Higher pixel pitch cameras continue to resolve more detail a couple stops beyond their supposed limit. I'm sure target contrast, and how steeply it falls off towards the airy disk edge, comes into play as well because if there's enough contrast the detail can still be resolved.


For sure there's room to argue about the numbers. 1.22 for Rayleigh or 1.0 for extinction? 500nm light or 550nm light? 2, 2.5 or 3 pixels per cycle (not 2!)? And it depends on the demosaicing algorithm, the AA filter, and even the microlenses. The "diffraction limit" is definitely a squishy place!


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> You seem to be saying that if you change the sensor from FF to APS-C but not the lens, zoom setting, or distance to subject then you get A resulting image with a narrower FOV (corresponding to a focal length 1.6x longer) AND a narrower aperture A little more than a stop you state, the math would put it at 1.3 stops). The former is true, the latter is not fact, it’s completely false.


The *aperture* doesn't change, but the equivalent f-stop does change. If you change the equivalent focal length, the equivalent f-stop changes by simple math - f-stop = focal length/aperture. Therefore equivalent f-stop = equivalent focal length/aperture. Equivalence is just relating how the system performs compared to a different system and a 100/2 on crop performs just like a 160/3.2 would on full-frame - same field of view, same light captured, same depth of field, same effects of diffraction, same everything. Yes, "exposure" will be different so the EXIF data will be different (increase ISO by 1.6^2) but the images will be the same.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> The "diffraction limit" is definitely a squishy place!


But you're absolutely sure that for a 32 MP APS-C sensor, the DLA is _not_ f/5.2. Ok, fine.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> The *aperture* doesn't change, but the equivalent f-stop does change. If you change the equivalent focal length, the equivalent f-stop changes by simple math - f-stop = focal length/aperture. Therefore equivalent f-stop = equivalent focal length/aperture. Equivalence is just relating how the system performs compared to a different system and a 100/2 on crop performs just like a 160/3.2 would on full-frame - same field of view, same light captured, same depth of field, same effects of diffraction, same everything. Yes, "exposure" will be different so the EXIF data will be different (increase ISO by 1.6^2) but the images will be the same.


Yes, water was wet a few posts ago, and not surprisingly, water is still wet. Thanks for posting.

By the way, if you read the post to which I was referring, the only change was the sensor. The systems were not equivalent. Cropping —whether via post-processing or via a smaller sensor— changes neither focal length nor aperture. It does change field of view (makes it narrower), and it does change depth of field (makes it shallower, which is the opposite direction from what 'equivalent f-stop' would suggest). You probably know this, but it seems the poster to whom I was replying doesn't.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 3, 2022)

entoman said:


> *Equivalence*: I agree with your reply to _unfocused_. The problem is that it is a subject that many find complex so they turn away from it. Many people here may be very intelligent and experts in their own fields, but unable to grasp particular subjects that are alien to them. The solution for those who do understand it fully, is to explain it courteously *and* in simple terms. Experts often fail in communication because they make a subject sound even more complicated than it is in reality.


Perhaps you don't mean it this way, but this response is insulting and condescending. It is not that my poor little pea brain is unable to understand the concepts. It is that I understand it and simply disagree with the way some use equivalence interchangeably to describe both exposure equivalence and apparent depth of field. I have seen the endless confusion and downright baloney that gets posted on here when people use equivalence to refer to depth of field so I decline to use it in that way.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> But you're absolutely sure that for a 32 MP APS-C sensor, the DLA is _not_ f/5.2. Ok, fine.


 It's closer to 15 than 5, and the squishiness is in the +/- 25% range, not a factor of 3.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Perhaps you don't mean it this way, but this response is insulting and condescending. It is not that my poor little pea brain is unable to understand the concepts. It is that I understand it and simply disagree with the way some use equivalence interchangeably to describe both exposure equivalence and apparent depth of field. I have seen the endless confusion and downright baloney that gets posted on here when people use equivalence to refer to depth of field so I decline to use it in that way.


Why?

The DOF of a shot on a full-frame camera at 160mm/16 will be the same as the DOF of a shot on a crop camera at 100mm/10.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 3, 2022)

entoman said:


> For context, I'm a prospective buyer of an R7, as a second body to my R5 (third body if you include my 5DMkiv). I photograph wildlife including BIF, insects, landscapes and nature in general. I only rarely shoot sports. I don't shoot video.
> 
> What I'd personally like to have is:
> 28MP
> ...


Of course no one gets exactly what they want. So I'd be interested in knowing if a more likely specification list would still entice you or not. 

I am guessing that Canon is not going to reinvent the wheel, but instead base an R7 on existing specifications in other cameras. That's why I asked about a crop sensor R6 with a sensor resolution similar to the 90D and priced in the neighborhood of the R6 give or take a few hundred dollars. 

From your list I think dual CFExpress slots and redesigning the flip screen are definitely non-starters. I doubt that the autofocus will see any improvement over the R6/R5 although it is possible that they will add next generation refinements, as Canon has frequently done that with subsequent camera bodies. I would expect that the EVF would be closer to the R6 than the R5.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, water was wet a few posts ago, and not surprisingly, water is still wet. Thanks for posting.
> 
> By the way, if you read the post to which I was referring, the only change was the sensor. The systems were not equivalent. Cropping —whether via post-processing or via a smaller sensor— changes neither focal length nor aperture. It does change field of view (makes it narrower), and it does change depth of field (makes it shallower, which is the opposite direction from what 'equivalent f-stop' would suggest). You probably know this, but it seems the poster to whom I was replying doesn't.


Cropping doesn't change focal length or aperture, it changes equivalent focal length and equivalent f-stop. Since DOF goes with focal length *squared* (for shallow DOF) and only f-stop *not squared* (linear), that's why you think this double change is in "the opposite direction from what 'equivalent f-stop' would suggest". It's not opposite, it's just that the change in equivalent focal length more than compensates for the change in equivalent f-stop.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> It's closer to 15 than 5, and the squishiness is in the +/- 25% range, not a factor of 3.


Why is it that this diffraction calculator shows a 32 MP 1.6x APS-C camera being diffraction limited at f/8 but not at f5.6 (with only full stop increments available), and this other diffraction calculator with 1/3-stop increments shows a 32 MP 1.6x APS-C camera being diffraction limited at f/6.3 but not at f5.6? 

Based on those, it's much closer to 5 than to 15.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 3, 2022)

Somewhere buried deep in this thread is a person chiming in hoping the purported R7 will be housed in an R6 body. As someone who came into the 5 series bodies from a 7D, which was a natural progression and ergonomic fit, I would agree that this would make sense for many of us and make a great 2 body approach to handling and settings. 

_If I only had a nickel for every time I heard someone say they shot with both a 5D 2 and a 7D._

My R7 hopes and dreams would be: 

24-32 MP backlit sensor
2 SD card slots
R6 dials and button layout
faster fps than R6
same sealing
same or improved AF, improved with trickle down from R3 for servo cases

$200-300 more than R6 in USD...am I delusional?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> It's not opposite, it's just that the change in equivalent focal length more than compensates for the change in equivalent f-stop.


The point is that CoC varies directly with sensor size, so a smaller sensor will have a shallower DoF, all else been equal (not equivalent, equal). With a smaller sensor, when you use a wider focal length or increase subject distance to match framing, that results in a deeper DoF (i.e., the 'equivalent f-stop' is narrower).


----------



## unfocused (Feb 3, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> Why?
> 
> The DOF of a shot on a full-frame camera at 160mm/16 will be the same as the DOF of a shot on a crop camera at 100mm/10.


I really don't want to get into this, but since you asked. You are correct in your example. But the reason you are correct has nothing to do with the sensor. 

It has to do with the distance to subject and focal length of the lens. Using your example. If you shoot the same subject at 160mm/f16 standing from the exact same spot using a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera and then examine the same areas in both the crop and full frame image, they will show identical depth of field. In fact, you could take the crop image and overlay it onto the full frame image in Photoshop and they would be identical in depth of field in the cropped portion of the full frame image.

Depth of field is not sensor dependent. It only appears to be so, because you must change either your shooting position or, in the example you are using, the focal length of the lens, in order to get the same cropping in the final image. 

Depth of field resides solely within the lens and distance to subject. Since depth of field is sensor independent, I don't like to use the term equivalence for depth of field, because people think it has something to do with the sensor, which it does not.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why is it that this diffraction calculator shows a 32 MP 1.6x APS-C camera being diffraction limited at f/8 but not at f5.6 (with only full stop increments available), and this other diffraction calculator with 1/3-stop increments shows a 32 MP 1.6x APS-C camera being diffraction limited at f/6.3 but not at f5.6?
> 
> Based on those, it's much closer to 5 than to 15.



Because, as I stated above, it's common for people to both calculate and interpret diffraction limits incorrectly.

By the way, I've confirmed my own math with carefully-collected actual images.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 3, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Somewhere buried deep in this thread is a person chiming in hoping the purported R7 will be housed in an R6 body. As someone who came into the 5 series bodies from a 7D, which was a natural progression and ergonomic fit, I would agree that this would make sense for many of us and make a great 2 body approach to handling and settings.
> 
> _If I only had a nickel for every time I heard someone say they shot with both a 5D 2 and a 7D._
> 
> ...


You are not delusional. I think this is a highly likely scenario. 

And I very much appreciate your efforts to get this thread back on track. The off-topic discussions simply repeat points that have been endlessly discussed and are of no more interest and insight today than they were in the literally hundreds of other threads that have been hijacked by such discussions.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I really don't want to get into this, but since you asked. You are correct in your example. But the reason you are correct has nothing to do with the sensor.


It has to do with the sensor size.


unfocused said:


> It has to do with the distance to subject and focal length of the lens. Using your example. If you shoot the same subject at 160mm/f16 standing from the exact same spot using a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera and then examine the same areas in both the crop and full frame image, they will show identical depth of field.


Because cropping in post and cropping by reducing sensor size are the same thing.


unfocused said:


> In fact, you could take the crop image and overlay it onto the full frame image in Photoshop and they would be identical in depth of field in the cropped portion of the full frame image.


Right, but irrelevant.


unfocused said:


> Depth of field is not sensor dependent.


No, it's actually enlargement dependent.


unfocused said:


> It only appears to be so,


Which is all that matters.


unfocused said:


> because you must change either your shooting position or, in the example you are using, the focal length of the lens, in order to get the same cropping in the final image.
> 
> Depth of field resides solely within the lens and distance to subject.


False.


unfocused said:


> Since depth of field is sensor independent, I don't like to use the term equivalence for depth of field, because people think it has something to do with the sensor, which it does not.


It does - changing sensor size changes enlargement ratio and that changes DOF.

DOF is *entirely perceptual*. There is no "actual DOF" as the plane of focus is a plane - infinitely thin.

Viewing the same print on the same wall from a closer distance changes DOF. When you crop, either in post or by using a smaller sensor and viewing the final image at the same final size, that changes DOF.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The point is that CoC varies directly with sensor size, so a smaller sensor will have a shallower DoF, all else been equal (not equivalent, equal). With a smaller sensor, when you use a wider focal length or increase subject distance to match framing, that results in a deeper DoF (i.e., the 'equivalent f-stop' is narrower).


That's one (correct) way to look at it, yes.


----------



## entoman (Feb 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Perhaps you don't mean it this way, but this response is insulting and condescending. It is not that my poor little pea brain is unable to understand the concepts. It is that I understand it and simply disagree with the way some use equivalence interchangeably to describe both exposure equivalence and apparent depth of field. I have seen the endless confusion and downright baloney that gets posted on here when people use equivalence to refer to depth of field so I decline to use it in that way.


Step back and chill out. You take offence too easily. There is no "perhaps" about it. You are correct that my post was NOT met in the very odd way that you interpreted it. I told neuro that I agreed with his reply to you. Separately, my comments about how to best explain the concept to others, was a generalisation, not aimed at you or anyone else in particular.

I'm an expert in some fields but not in others, and the same applies to most people, including you. I just think that sometimes the experts talk in terms that people can't easily digest. It's nothing to do with intelligence, so your "little pea brain" sarcasm is entirely misplaced. I can follow a discussion about microbiology, palaeontology, entomology or astrophysics with ease, but I'd have difficulty following a discussion about cryptocurrency!


----------



## entoman (Feb 3, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Somewhere buried deep in this thread is a person chiming in hoping the purported R7 will be housed in an R6 body. As someone who came into the 5 series bodies from a 7D, which was a natural progression and ergonomic fit, I would agree that this would make sense for many of us and make a great 2 body approach to handling and settings.
> 
> _If I only had a nickel for every time I heard someone say they shot with both a 5D 2 and a 7D._
> 
> ...


Good luck, our desired specifications are not dissimilar, and the price seems about right. Canon have launched some amazing gear recently (as have Nikon and Sony), but unfortunately I think we'll both have to settle for a compromise. Or it could be something well below what we hope for - perhaps a cheap entry model to compete with recent Sony and Nikon APS products...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I really don't want to get into this...


Good call, you shouldn't have.



unfocused said:


> Depth of field resides solely within the lens and distance to subject. Since depth of field is sensor independent, I don't like to use the term equivalence for depth of field, because people think it has something to do with the sensor, which it does not.


This is false. Thank you for confirming my suspicion that you prefer to avoid discussing the concept of equivalence and would rather restrict such discussion only to equivalent focal length/FoV because you really don't understand the concept of equivalence.


----------



## entoman (Feb 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Of course no one gets exactly what they want. So I'd be interested in knowing if a more likely specification list would still entice you or not.
> 
> I am guessing that Canon is not going to reinvent the wheel, but instead base an R7 on existing specifications in other cameras. That's why I asked about a crop sensor R6 with a sensor resolution similar to the 90D and priced in the neighborhood of the R6 give or take a few hundred dollars.
> 
> From your list I think dual CFExpress slots and redesigning the flip screen are definitely non-starters. I doubt that the autofocus will see any improvement over the R6/R5 although it is possible that they will add next generation refinements, as Canon has frequently done that with subsequent camera bodies. I would expect that the EVF would be closer to the R6 than the R5.


Yes I think my twin CFE-B slots and tilt 'n flip screen are non-starters, my wish list was just that - a wish list. I could live without either of those features.

What I'm looking for is a camera with roughly equal performance to an R5, but with the extra APS-C "reach". 24MP might be enough to entice me, as an APS-C crop from my R5 is only 17MP, but obviously the better the specification, the more likely I am to buy, given that I'm willing to go as high as £3000. If the camera is too far removed from my "ideal", I'd skip it, as the R5 and 5DMkiv between them cover most of my needs and wants already. I'd want a "better" sensor than the one in the 90D, as I shoot a lot in the ISO 800-3200 range, and also in conditions where I need enough DR to be able to pull detail out of deep shadows and washed out highlights.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> It is that I understand it and simply disagree with the way some use equivalence interchangeably to describe both exposure equivalence and apparent depth of field. I have seen the endless confusion and downright baloney that gets posted on here when people use equivalence to refer to depth of field so I decline to use it in that way.


Sorry, but no – you do not understand it, as your posts have made abundantly clear.

The resource that PBD often cites is here: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/ which is an accurate and fairly readable treatment of the subject.

If you prefer a more scholarly treatment from a peer-reviewed publication, try this: https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.57.11.110801

Sadly, I doubt you'll bother reading and trying to understand either of them and instead will just continue with what is the real baloney here, complaining about rabbit holes and pedantry in discussions of a concept that exceeds your comprehension, and trying to limit the discussion to the only part of the concept you grasp: equivalence is only about focal length...mic drop.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 3, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> It's wrong.
> 
> I'm not sure what they did wrong, but it's usually one of two methods of getting the wrong answer.
> 
> ...


According to the Digital Picture site, the DLA for the 5DS and 5DSR is f/6.7. According to your calculations, the DLA for the 5DSR measured by MTF50 would be f/22. It doesn't have an AA-filter, but at the worst using your factor of 1.5x for the Nyquist it would be f/15, and comparing the measured resolutions of the 5DSR vs 5DS would be f/18. I am an experimental scientist so I look for evidence. A few years back I actually plotted the values of MTF50 on the 5DSR with increasing f-number from data from ePhotozine and photozone (opticallimits) sites (I looked at the sharpest wide aperture lenses). You can below see that the MTF50 drops off linearly above about f/5, which is what you would expect for a DLA about f/6.7. A DLA of f/18 would drop off at a much higher value. What has my simple science got wrong?


----------



## Deleted (Feb 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but no – you do not understand it, as your posts have made abundantly clear.
> 
> The resource that PBD often cites is here: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/ which is an accurate and fairly readable treatment of the subject.
> 
> ...


The only think that frustrates me about these forums is the way every thread on aps-c invariably turns into this same issue. It is always involving the same protagonists. It can be fun sometimes, but it really is a turn off for many.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> Because, as I stated above, it's common for people to both calculate and interpret diffraction limits incorrectly.
> 
> By the way, I've confirmed my own math with carefully-collected actual images.


Have you? The available information linked below and in my previous post indicates that you're wrong.

32 MP APS-C sensor, f/5.6 vs f.8. DLA ≈5.2. Why is the f/8 image softer?








Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





20 MP FF sensor, f/5.6 vs f/8. DLA ≈10.6. Why is the f/8 image just as sharp?








Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





Same 20 MP FF sensor, f/11 vs f/16. DLA ≈10.6. Why is the f/16 image softer?








Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





Whether or not it's common for people to both calculate and interpret diffraction limits incorrectly, it seems like that's exactly what _you_ are doing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

Distinctly Average said:


> The only think that frustrates me about these forums is the way every thread on aps-c invariably turns into this same issue. It is always involving the same protagonists. It can be fun sometimes, but it really is a turn off for many.


It's unfortunate that you're frustrated when people try to correct false information and to improve others' understanding of the technical principles that underlie photography, here on this gear- and tech-oriented forum.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

Regarding DLA, honestly, the real 'problem' with misunderstandings of DLA is that some people incorrectly assume that stopping down past the DLA, whatever that value is, has _dire_ consequences. If you need more DoF, you need more DoF.

It's good to understand that depending on your sensor and the selected aperture, you may be giving up some sharpness to get more DoF. Knowing what the DLA is can help you make better choices on the spectrum of compromise between DoF and sharpness. But most people don't view an actual picture at 1:1 so pixel-level sharpness is usually less important than getting what you want within the DoF.

Conversely, it's good to understand that if you're shooting a painting on a wall you should probably not stop down to f/22.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Have you?


Yes. In my own testing, extinction resolution started dropping linearly between f/11 and f/16, on a 7D Mark II.

I think the testing above shows MTF dropping all the way, which it does, but that's not the same as extinction resolution.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> Yes. In my own testing, extinction resolution started dropping linearly between f/11 and f/16, on a 7D Mark II.
> 
> I think the testing above shows MTF dropping all the way, which it does, but that's not the same as extinction resolution.


The values that TDP reports for DLA are, as Bryan puts it, "The aperture where diffraction *begins* to visibly negatively affect image sharpness at the pixel level." The ISO 12233 chart images align with that definition. Here's the CIC calculator for your 7DII – note the last line: "Overall Range of *Onset*."




TDP reports a DLA of f/6.6 for the 7DII. That's the 'squishiness' you mention. 

We are all talking about the point at which diffraction _begins_ to affect an image. You seem to be talking about the point at which diffraction maximally affects an image, i.e. beyond which a narrower aperture has no additional softening effect.

IMO, the former is far more relevant to photography. The latter is not meaningless, but there's a reason we commonly say 'stop down the lens' (from wide open) and not 'stop up the lens' (from fully closed).


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 3, 2022)

entoman said:


> Good luck, our desired specifications are not dissimilar, and the price seems about right. Canon have launched some amazing gear recently (as have Nikon and Sony), but unfortunately I think we'll both have to settle for a compromise. Or it could be something well below what we hope for - perhaps a cheap entry model to compete with recent Sony and Nikon APS products...


Every camera body model is a compromise, whether you're speaking from a personal viewpoint or for all shooters in general. You stay in the craft long enough you accept that fact and don't find yourself in 70 page arguments on DPR. Peace!


----------



## unfocused (Feb 3, 2022)

Distinctly Average said:


> The only think that frustrates me about these forums is the way every thread on aps-c invariably turns into this same issue. It is always involving the same protagonists. It can be fun sometimes, but it really is a turn off for many.


Point taken. I will try very hard not to take part in these discussions in the future. Every point has been make hundreds of times before and no one ever convinces anyone else.

This would be a much better place if everyone would model their behavior after @sanj. A talented and successful professional who is always respectful and humble. I can't guarantee I will succeed, but I will resolve to try.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The bottom line is claiming an EVF is better because it shows you what the camera sees is false.
> 
> Personally, I didn’t like the image quality displayed in the EVF on my EOS R, especially coming from the excellent OVF of the 1D X. The image quality displayed in the EVF on the R3 is definitely better, but I still prefer that of a good OVF.
> 
> However, I like the convenience of the EVF. Being able to see a lot of relevant information overlayed, or none at the touch of a button. Being able to literally see in the dark to compose a shot that will be taken with high ISO.


I need to get my hands on an R3 for a bit just to see what the newest EVF is like. I normally get to play with lots of stuff thanks to friends, but nobody I know IRL has grabbed that one yet. I've said before that EVFs are better in low light until they aren't, until they fail completely on things that you can still see with an OVF and a fast lens. An example would be composing the Milky Way though a 24mm f/1.4. But perhaps the R3 is to the point that you can do this? Something I saw in a review video made me think the A7s III was there.

I'm definitely in the OVF camp, and probably will be until EVFs provide the same IQ as current high DPI/Retina screens. That phrasing implies resolution though the bigger problems seem to be color, contrast, DR, and potential lag. (Again, have not played with an R3 so I cannot say how much it has improved on any of those, other than I imagine lag is gone even under continuous shooting?) That said if one of the R5's features crossed the line, for me personally, from "nice" to "need" or even "really, really want" the EVF wouldn't stop me. And as you point out, EVFs can be very convenient. Having shutter, aperture, and ISO on three dials and setting exposure manually via EVF/LiveView is both fast and intuitive.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 3, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> I need to get my hands on an R3 for a bit just to see what the newest EVF is like. I normally get to play with lots of stuff thanks to friends, but nobody I know IRL has grabbed that one yet. I've said before that EVFs are better in low light until they aren't, until they fail completely on things that you can still see with an OVF and a fast lens. An example would be composing the Milky Way though a 24mm f/1.4. But perhaps the R3 is to the point that you can do this? Something I saw in a review video made me think the A7s III was there.
> 
> I'm definitely in the OVF camp, and probably will be until EVFs provide the same IQ as current high DPI/Retina screens. That phrasing implies resolution though the bigger problems seem to be color, contrast, DR, and potential lag. (Again, have not played with an R3 so I cannot say how much it has improved on any of those, other than I imagine lag is gone even under continuous shooting?) That said if one of the R5's features crossed the line, for me personally, from "nice" to "need" or even "really, really want" the EVF wouldn't stop me. And as you point out, EVFs can be very convenient. Having shutter, aperture, and ISO on three dials and setting exposure manually via EVF/LiveView is both fast and intuitive.


I used to be a confirmed OVF user who didn't want to go over to an EVF. But, since the R5 and R6, it's no longer an issue for me. There are pros and cons for each and I am happy to use either. The choice of EVF or OVF is, in my opinion, not a deal breaker. By the way, there is no lag when in the fast refresh mode and I use it for fast BIF shots with no problems.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Point taken. I will try very hard not to take part in these discussions in the future. Every point has been make hundreds of times before and no one ever convinces anyone else.


You could also consider refraining from making statements that are clearly incorrect and/or show your lack of comprehension of a concept. For example, your claim that, "Depth of field resides solely within the lens and distance to subject. Since depth of field is sensor independent...," is simply false, and shows that you are unaware of all the factors affecting DoF, or if you prefer a topical play on words, you are trapped within the circle of confusion.

Actually, better than refraining from making incorrect statements would be to learn and understand the relevant concepts. If you're not going to do that, perhaps follow the advice I gave another poster and just stick to pressing the shutter button and taking pictures and stay away from discussions of the technical aspects of photography.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 3, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I used to be a confirmed OVF user who didn't want to go over to an EVF. But, since the R5 and R6, it's no longer an issue for me. There are pros and cons for each and I am happy to use either. The choice of EVF or OVF is, in my opinion, not a deal breaker. By the way, there is no lag when in the fast refresh mode and I use it for fast BIF shots with no problems.


I wonder if the EVF lag is really gone nowadays or if the decreased shutter lag cancels out the increased viewfinder lag. It's the end result that counts, but I would like to know


----------



## unfocused (Feb 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> You could also consider refraining from making statements that are clearly incorrect and/or show your lack of comprehension of a concept. For example, your claim that, "Depth of field resides solely within the lens and distance to subject. Since depth of field is sensor independent...," is simply false, and shows that you are unaware of all the factors affecting DoF, or if you prefer a topical play on words, you are trapped within the circle of confusion.
> 
> Actually, better than refraining from making incorrect statements would be to learn and understand the relevant concepts. If you're not going to do that, perhaps follow the advice I gave another poster and just stick to pressing the shutter button and taking pictures and stay away from discussions of the technical aspects of photography.


Perhaps you missed the second part of my statement.



unfocused said:


> This would be a much better place if everyone would model their behavior after @sanj. A talented and successful professional who is always respectful and humble.


Try it sometime.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 3, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> I need to get my hands on an R3 for a bit just to see what the newest EVF is like. I normally get to play with lots of stuff thanks to friends, but nobody I know IRL has grabbed that one yet. I've said before that EVFs are better in low light until they aren't, until they fail completely on things that you can still see with an OVF and a fast lens. An example would be composing the Milky Way though a 24mm f/1.4. But perhaps the R3 is to the point that you can do this? Something I saw in a review video made me think the A7s III was there.
> 
> I'm definitely in the OVF camp, and probably will be until EVFs provide the same IQ as current high DPI/Retina screens. That phrasing implies resolution though the bigger problems seem to be color, contrast, DR, and potential lag. (Again, have not played with an R3 so I cannot say how much it has improved on any of those, other than I imagine lag is gone even under continuous shooting?) That said if one of the R5's features crossed the line, for me personally, from "nice" to "need" or even "really, really want" the EVF wouldn't stop me. And as you point out, EVFs can be very convenient. Having shutter, aperture, and ISO on three dials and setting exposure manually via EVF/LiveView is both fast and intuitive.


I haven't paid all that much attention, but I can't say that I notice any difference between the EVF of the R3 and the R5. Both are very good in my opinion. 

However, my use cases generally aren't the type that are affected by subtle differences in the EVF. (Sports for pay, birds for fun.) For me, it's all about getting the subject in focus which doesn't lend itself to detailed analysis in the viewfinder. I used to shoot a fair number of college concerts and plays, but COVID has played havoc with those. When I was using a R and a 5DIV I did find the EVF of the R a bit annoying as it tended to blow out the highlights and clip the shadows. On the plus side, the actual images always had a lot more range and subtlety than the EVF showed, since the sensors for both cameras are essentially the same. 

You are probably more discerning than I am in regards to the EVF image, so my experience may be irrelevant to you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Perhaps you missed the second part of my statement.


Here are the final two paragraphs of your post that I quoted:


unfocused said:


> Depth of field is not sensor dependent. It only appears to be so, because you must change either your shooting position or, in the example you are using, the focal length of the lens, in order to get the same cropping in the final image.
> 
> Depth of field resides solely within the lens and distance to subject. Since depth of field is sensor independent, I don't like to use the term equivalence for depth of field, because people think it has something to do with the sensor, which it does not.


You stated several times that DoF is independent of the sensor. That is wrong.

What did I miss, except you saying that you don’t want to discuss the concept of equivalence as it’s defined, because people think DoF has something to do with the sensor?

People think DoF has something to do with the sensor because *it does*. Specifically, with the size of the sensor, which determines the amount of enlargement needed for output. Have you ever used an online DoF calculator? Do you think there’s a drop-down menu to choose your camera on them for no reason?

Seriously, the way you keep doubling down on your incorrect statements is embarrassing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

@unfocused
Probably a lost cause and this will fall on blind eyes but:




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

You can go on thinking that DoF is independent of sensor size, or that the Earth is flat, or whatever other nonsense you choose to believe. You are welcome to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.



neuroanatomist said:


> Actually, better than refraining from making incorrect statements would be to learn and understand the relevant concepts.


Try it sometime.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> What did I miss...


You missed this:


unfocused said:


> This would be a much better place if everyone would model their behavior after @sanj. A talented and successful professional who is always respectful and humble. I can't guarantee I will succeed, but I will resolve to try.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> You missed this:


No, I didn’t. But @sanj often admits when he’s wrong and tries to learn when concepts he doesn’t understand are explained. Perhaps you should consider that as you attempt to model your behavior after his.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 3, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I wonder if the EVF lag is really gone nowadays or if the decreased shutter lag cancels out the increased viewfinder lag. It's the end result that counts, but I would like to know


I still find lag to be a problem, although no where nearly as bad as it was with the original R.

Here is an example of where it can be particularly challenging.




This was shot with the R5. Catching the ball in mid air means having to hit the shutter well before it leaves her hand. It took five or six tries to get it right and in none of the tries was the actual location of the ball visible. I hit the shutter when, in the viewfinder, the ball was still in her hand. In other words, it's pretty much guesswork. Of course this is a specialized case, but it is an example of the challenge that an electronic viewfinder presents. Of course, with a 5D4 there was still a delay due to the fact that my reflexes aren't instantaneous, but the lag time was not nearly as great.

Unless you are shooting studio shots like this, you probably won't notice the lag out in the field, Shooting birds for example. In the field, or on a court shooting sports, the rapid frames per second pretty much obscures any lag time. It's only in the studio, when I have to shoot single shot (because my strobes don't recycle fast enough) that I notice this.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 3, 2022)

AlanF said:


> According to the Digital Picture site, the DLA for the 5DS and 5DSR is f/6.7. According to your calculations, the DLA for the 5DSR measured by MTF50 would be f/22. It doesn't have an AA-filter, but at the worst using your factor of 1.5x for the Nyquist it would be f/15, and comparing the measured resolutions of the 5DSR vs 5DS would be f/18. I am an experimental scientist so I look for evidence. A few years back I actually plotted the values of MTF50 on the 5DSR with increasing f-number from data from ePhotozine and photozone (opticallimits) sites (I looked at the sharpest wide aperture lenses). You can below see that the MTF50 drops off linearly above about f/5, which is what you would expect for a DLA about f/6.7. A DLA of f/18 would drop off at a much higher value. What has my simple science got wrong?


Your graph isn't wrong per se, but it doesn't sufficiently model the issue at hand.

The first issue is that people tend to interpret DLA as a hard and fast limit. Which means they think a higher resolution sensor and a lower resolution sensor will be limited to the same resolution beyond the DLA limit. In other words, they think a 5DsR and a 6D will show the same detail at f/8 because the 5DsR has crossed the DLA line. But this is observably false. Higher resolution sensors continue to resolve more detail past the DLA. Not forever of course. But at f/16 a 5Ds can still separate lines that have long since blurred to gray on a 6D. (I chose the 5Ds because the 6D has an AA filter and someone might otherwise say the difference is due to AA.) In fact, if you leave the 5Ds at f/16 and switch the 6D to f/2, you'll see that while the 6D can resolve more at f/2 than it could at f/16, it still can't resolve as much as the 5Ds at f/16. This is the opposite of what most people would assume based on how DLA is typically described.









Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





Your graph by itself doesn't tell someone if DLA is hard and fast, or a steadily increasing factor. It would need to be compared to graphs of other sensors of varying pixel densities.

The second issue is that people tend to think of "resolution" as how many blades of grass can be separated and seen, not how sharp the separation is. They will just say "sharpness" when they mean the latter. MTF50 does not measure "resolution" in the way that photographers typically use the term. An MTF50 graph is an indicator of perceived sharpness. Traditionally "resolution" tests, meaning extinction resolution, were performed at MTF10. In theory you could see convergence on a pair of MTF50 graphs and think _'ah hah! DLA limits the sensors to the same resolution right here.'_ But if you looked at MTF10 graphs, or at a lens comparison like the one above, you would see the higher resolution sensor resolving line pairs the lower one cannot at much more narrow apertures than might be indicated by MTF50.

Diffraction starts to become a factor _in sharpness_ at the traditionally quoted DLA values, as is clearly shown by your graph. But it does not equalize the _resolved detail_ of higher and lower resolution sensors until much higher values. The distinction is especially important in the digital age because you can, to a point, restore lost sharpness with a mouse click. You cannot restore missing detail. (Though AI is getting better at faking it.) 'Limit' was a terrible word choice for this phenomenon by whoever first coined the phrase. It should be something else, perhaps Diffraction Impacted Aperture.

I have done neither the research nor the testing to know if Lee Jay's inputs are correct _for evaluating the point at which DLA truly limits resolved detail._ The only one I can credibly critique is a value of 3 for Nyquist. You should not need a value that high, though he is absolutely correct that you need a value >2. But he is right to point out that DLA is not a simple, hard line in the sand. It's a fuzzy range because airy disks are literally fuzzy, meaning they are not the same contrast/strength at the edge as in the center.

Kudos to him for exploring the issue more deeply and trying to measure it, regardless of whether or not he nailed every last number.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> We are all talking about the point at which diffraction _begins_ to affect an image. You seem to be talking about the point at which diffraction maximally affects an image, i.e. beyond which a narrower aperture has no additional softening effect.
> 
> IMO, the former is far more relevant to photography. The latter is not meaningless, but there's a reason we commonly say 'stop down the lens' (from wide open) and not 'stop up the lens' (from fully closed).


In his defense, it's common for people to treat DLA as a hard and fast limit on resolved detail. Bryan doesn't screw that up in his description at TDP, but it's a common screw up. As to which is more relevant, in the film age the point at which diffraction begins to impact an image was. Today, with post processing? IMHO it's more important to know the point where DLA means you're losing resolved detail and/or cannot sharpen away the effect.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> In his defense, it's common for people to treat DLA as a hard and fast limit on resolved detail. Bryan doesn't screw that up in his description at TDP, but it's a common screw up. As to which is more relevant, in the film age the point at which diffraction begins to impact an image was. Today, with post processing? IMHO it's more important to know the point where DLA means you're losing resolved detail and/or cannot sharpen away the effect.


As I stated earlier in this thread, except that I disagreed with the relative importance of the onset versus the end of diffraction limited aperture range. Modern sharpening algorithms are good at counteracting the effects of diffraction, but not perfect. Personally, I would rather know when my settings start to introduce a deleterious optical effect so I can avoid it if possible rather than relying on the imperfect ability to correct it in post.

Having said that, knowing the final extinction limit is useful in handheld macro photography, where use of very narrow apertures is much more common.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> As I stated earlier in this thread, except that I disagreed with the relative importance of the onset versus the end of diffraction limited aperture range.


The thread got ahead of me so if I needlessly rehashed something covered in an earlier post by you, that's on me.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 3, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> In his defense, it's common for people to treat DLA as a hard and fast limit on resolved detail. Bryan doesn't screw that up in his description at TDP, but it's a common screw up. As to which is more relevant, in the film age the point at which diffraction begins to impact an image was. Today, with post processing? IMHO it's more important to know the point where DLA means you're losing resolved detail and/or cannot sharpen away the effect.


For simplicity, you can divide the loss of resolution into two phases. There is a cut-off frequency, the Nyquist frequency, above which higher frequencies cannot be resolved. Then, as you go to lower frequencies, they progressively get resolved better and better until they are fully resolved at much lower frequencies. For a digital sensor as Lee Jay posted, the Nyquist frequency is 1/(2xpixel pitch) if there are no complicating factors. Diffraction also behaves qualitatively the same way, though it is squishier. The first radius of the diffraction disk (Airy disk) is the key number. There is a point where higher frequencies can't be resolved which is approximately where the maximum of one disk is at the radius of an adjoining one (which is where some squishiness comes in as the disk doesn't have a hard edge). As the disks become further separated, frequencies become progressively better resolved until fully resolved. The radius of the Airy disk is directly proportional to the f-number. The DLA calculated by the Digital Picture and other sites is the f-number at which the radius of the Airy disk is the same as the pixel pitch. It also gets a bit messy because the red end of the spectrum has a bigger radius than the blue.

So, there are cut-offs, albeit a bit messy, and in addition a lead up to the cut-off that has a progressive phase where resolution is more slowly lost up to the full loss at the cut-off.


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> No, I didn’t. But @sanj often admits when he’s wrong and tries to learn when concepts he doesn’t understand are explained. Perhaps you should consider that as you attempt to model your behavior after his.


It's one thing when you harass, use ridicule and sarcasm, to put down trolls or rude people who make the forum an unfriendly place.

It's quite another when you do the same to someone who is relatively polite and courteous. Do it enough and you come across as nothing but an a-hole. 

On another forum I used to work for, we had a sort of unwritten rule that after a person makes their point in 3 posts, then they should move on. Repeating the same thing over and over is annoying and makes the person start to come across as nothing but an a-hole. 

It's good thing to teach, but not a good thing to lecture. It's a good thing to pass along knowledge, but not so good to insist that those that are misinformed admit that they are wrong - or essentially to bow down and kiss your feet because you are superior. When you do that, well, I think you are smart enough to figure out what that makes you come across as...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> It's one thing when you harass, use ridicule and sarcasm, to put down trolls or rude people who make the forum an unfriendly place.
> 
> It's quite another when you do the same to someone who is relatively polite and courteous. Do it enough and you come across as nothing but an a-hole.
> 
> ...


It seems another recap is warranted. A member (who has not posted again in this discussion), posted incorrect information. I replied with a correction, suggesting the possibility that I misunderstood his post.

@unfocused chose to reply to my factually accurate correction with misinformation, claiming that a larger sensor does not gather more light.



unfocused said:


> …I do question one statement (or at least want to clarify it)….
> I think this is worth clarifying because some of the "experts" on this forum make fuzzy statements that can easily imply that the mere size of the sensor means more light gathering.



He replies again with:


unfocused said:


> 1) I have no interest or desire to go down that equivalence rabbit hole.


…then proceeds to present his incomplete understanding of equivalence.

Then we have:


unfocused said:


> I really don't want to get into this, but since you asked. …
> 
> Depth of field resides solely within the lens and distance to subject. Since depth of field is sensor independent…


He ‘doesn’t want to get into this’, but then he does and presents still more incorrect information.

@Czardoom it’s your choice to leap to the defense of someone repeatedly making false statements (protesting all the while he doesn’t want to reply). It’s your choice to blame the person who didn’t open the can of worms.

It could be worse, you could be leaping to the defense of someone claiming that vaccines contain nanotrackers or that foreign space lasers caused wildfires in California. I’m sure if you look, you can find other forums to defend some polite and courteous people spouting more egregious misinformation than @unfocused is spouting here. In the meantime, your implication that I’m being an asshole is not going to deter me from correcting false information.

@unfocused is an adult. If he lacks the willpower not to hit Post Reply after saying he ’doesn’t want to get into this’, that’s not my problem. Nor should you make it yours.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 4, 2022)

so... how about that R7 huh?


----------



## unfocused (Feb 4, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> It's one thing when you harass, use ridicule and sarcasm, to put down trolls or rude people who make the forum an unfriendly place.
> 
> It's quite another when you do the same to someone who is relatively polite and courteous. Do it enough and you come across as nothing but an a-hole.
> 
> ...


A very thoughtful post and one we can all learn from.

I think what I find most frustrating is that we have lost some very talented contributors over the years due to bullying. One in particular was a huge loss to this forum. He was an obviously successful Hollywood portrait photographer (I specifically recall a portrait of Mila Kunas that he posted on the forum). When a successful professional finds this forum and decides to join in, he or she deserves a little respect and people need to cut them some slack. Unfortunately he was treated with disrespect and abuse and dropped off the forum. That's one reason why I try to show a little appreciation for @sanj. If anyone takes the time to check him out, they can see that he is an accomplished cinematographer who has better things to do than spend time on this forum.

I frequently and often vehemently disagree with @GoldWing's opinions, but lately I've tried to understand where he is coming from and can see that he actually has legitimate points.

But, it really goes beyond just professionals. There have been many, many contributors who got on the wrong side of someone and were badgered and abused at every turn. Troll can be a very subjective term and some of these people were deemed "trolls" simply because they expressed opinions that were contrary to others. 

I'm a longtime contributor. I should probably quit wasting my time here, but I find it to be an entertaining break at times. I do learn some things on this forum, but it is not from those who fancy themselves to be experts. I learn more from those who post honest questions and wish to engage in genuine exchanges of viewpoint, versus those who enter every conversation as though there is some prize for "winning."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2022)

@unfocused do you feel bullied because I dont allow your false statements and misinformation stand without challenge? Because I refute your false information with facts supported by multiple external references? Have you provided even a single reference to support your statements?

I enjoy your contributions to this forum on non-technical matters. Images, experience, opinions on which lens is better or the pros and cons of EVFs vs OVFs. In a nutshell, subjective topics.

However, it’s abundantly clear that your understanding of some of the technical aspects of photography is lacking. Those are objective topics governed mainly by the principles of optics and physics. Any opinion you may have about the relationship between force, mass and acceleration is irrelevant. Force equals mass times acceleration. You cannot decline to discuss acceleration when considering force, since acceleration is one of the variables that determine force.

I can’t stop you from stating your ‘opinion’ on objective concepts like what determines DoF or how sensor size affects total light gathered, any more than I can stop you from sharing your ‘opinion’ on the roughly spherical shape of the Earth. But when your personal viewpoint differs from established fact and published literature, I’m not going to refrain from pointing out that you’re wrong to spare your feelings.


----------



## Jethro (Feb 4, 2022)

Neuro, I've been an occasional observer of your interactions with forum members (including Unfocused), for some time. I largely agree (to the limits of my technical and practical understanding) with a lot of what you are saying. Part of the reason I'm here is to learn - and I tend to want detail and precision. I think a lot of the issue comes down to the tone of what you're saying. 

I think it's over the top to describe (as an example from your last post) Unfocused as making deliberate 'false statements and misinformation'. Your view is that what he is saying is wrong (and that you've already refuted it factually) and yet he keeps repeating / defending it - but I don't think Unfocused is deliberately trying to misinform people. He's putting a view which is much less technically focused than what you are (eg on the fraught Equivalence issue). Yes, there are technical definitions for some of these terms and concepts. And I'm interested in them in that context. But many of us in the Forum have more limited focus, and are (at least sometimes) using technical terms in a more vernacular sense. I think it's over the top to use pejorative language (and tone) in reply to these types of comments. I'm not saying that shouldn't be done to a particular class of participant who is here deliberately to spread misinformation. But there are (in my view) pretty clear delineations between that type of poster and a longterm contributor like Unfocused.

I really want to keep as many people as possible contributing regularly to the forum. And I think if the 'heat' of replies can be turned down, it will make it a more pleasant place for everyone. If the same technical disagreements arise - is an answer to simply include a link back to summaries (and there have been detailed ones posted) in the past? And then move on?

I know this is all sounding awfully like 'can't we all play nicely and get along', and I apologise for that - but tolerance and forbearance from all sides would be appreciated.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 4, 2022)

Personally I am deeply concerned that irrefutably false information is repeated by people that know better time and time again.

Would anybody take seriously a poster that, when talking about exposure, says something like _‘I don’t think aperture or iso is relevant or even a part of the exposure question, oh and I don’t want to get drawn into a conversation about it’._ Yet to the truly uninitiated looking for information that incorrect post has as much prominence as the truth particularly when that post is made by a long running well respected member. Equivalence is no more opinion than exposure.

You can work a camera without understanding exposure, indeed many artistic people have zero interest in any of that yet take fantastic photos, and that is fine. You can be a knowledgable pro and never consider or grasp the actual application of ‘equivalence’ and again that is fine. Indeed it seems to be the norm!

But if you do want to understand how to take a photo with identical image characteristics with your M50 and R5 there is a set in stone mathematically derived formula that is incredibly simple to learn.

Equivalence dictates you apply a factor, everybody calls it a crop factor, to focal length, *and* aperture, *and* iso. A crop factor can be a positive or negative value depending on if you are going up or down in sensor size. Cropping is exactly the same as using a smaller sensor. Ergo, if you crop all else being equal you change DoF. All else being equal includes, by definition, the same *sized *output, not scaled output.

Depth of field relies on *only two* factors after you determine what is ‘acceptable focus’. The size of the lens pupil. The size of the subject as you are looking at the image output. THAT IS IT. 

Everything else in a DoF calculator is being used to determine those two numbers. Aperture, focal length, subject distance, sensor size etc etc are only relevant in determining the size of the lens pupil (not aperture) and the size of the subject as you are looking at it.

I draw a line when knowledgable people deliberately confuse or misstate the simple facts for seemingly no reason whatsoever. We all make mistakes, but continuing to push blatantly false ideas even when people have taken considerable time to explain the subject to you is either fraudulent, maleficent, or stupid.

If you don’t want to learn something that is fine, just don’t confuse the issue by trying to talk about exposure as a concept in terms of shutter speed alone, or equivalence in terms of focal length/fov/aov/afov alone. That belittles everybody and does no good.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 4, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> Personally I am deeply concerned that irrefutably false information is repeated by people that know better time and time again.
> 
> If you don’t want to learn something that is fine, just don’t confuse the issue by trying to talk about exposure as a concept in terms of shutter speed alone, or equivalence in terms of focal length/fov/aov/afov alone. That belittles everybody and does no good.


Hey Private ! Can we talk about perspective next ?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 4, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Hey Private ! Can we talk about perspective next ?


Please!


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The values that TDP reports for DLA are, as Bryan puts it, "The aperture where diffraction *begins* to visibly negatively affect image sharpness at the pixel level."


Diffraction always affects an image. It's always present and it's always decreasing MTF, regardless of aperture. So, if that's the definition they are using, the answer is always the same - f/0. If it's "visibly" then it's observer-dependent and you're putting human perception, judgement and preferences into the equation.

I prefer this definition, which is where MTF drops to zero:






Spatial cutoff frequency - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




*Spatial cutoff (line pairs per mm) = 1/(Nω)*

Most people prefer the Rayleigh limit, which is where MTF drops to 9%:
*Rayleigh limit (line pairs per mm) = 1/(1.22 Nω)*



Understanding resolution and MTF



"*How is MTF related to lines per millimeter resolution? *The old resolution measurement— distinguishable lp/mm— corresponds roughly to spatial frequencies where MTF is between 5% and 2% (0.05 to 0.02). This number varies with the observer, most of whom stretch it as far as they can. An MTF of 9% is implied in the definition of the Rayleigh diffraction limit.

*Perceived image sharpness (as distinguished from traditional lp/mm resolution) is closely related to the spatial frequency where MTF is 50% (0.5)— where contrast has dropped by half."*

It seems your references use something more like the above definition of perceived image sharpness to mean "diffraction limited". To me, and to the entire astro community, "diffraction limited" means where you can't get any more resolving power, not where sharpness starts to visibly degrade.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> @unfocused do you feel bullied..


Do I personally feel bullied by you? No. I am used to it and it doesn't bother or deter me in the least. Do I find your constant bullying of others offensive? Yes.

On the previous subject, it really comes down to different perspectives.

My training is in journalism. I have a natural inclination to take subjects and try to boil them down to the essential and easiest to understand practical application. I consider many of the details to be unnecessarily confusing and superfluous. You come from a technical background. You live or die by the details and each and every detail is important to you. In short, you are a trees guy and I am a forest guy.

The truth is that I have an unfair advantage in these discussions. I can readily admit the validity of your statements, which I do, but at the same time I'm free to dismiss them as not particularly important in the general application of the concepts. On the other hand, since every detail is important to you, you get upset when I gloss over some of the finer points and become convinced that I am either ignorant of those points or purposely deceptive. Neither is the case, I just have a different goal in mind.

You feel that my generalizations are detrimental to people understanding certain concepts. I feel your excessively detailed and, I would say, rigid interpretations are detrimental to the actual practice of those concepts. We are probably both right and both wrong to a certain extent.

What is not debatable though is that these topics have already been discussed time and time again on this forum. Anyone who has the tiniest bit of interest in these topics can easily read through past debates and draw their own conclusions. There is really no reason to further clog the forum with repeated discussions. I am guilty of getting lured into these discussions and I should know better.

I do think you would be wise to follow the advice that have been offered to you in regards to forum etiquette. However, I don't hold out a lot of hope that that will occur. Over the years you have carefully cultivated a forum personality that I and many others find offensive. I have no idea why you take such pride in being thought of as...well.. as a world-class jerk. But, that's how you have defined yourself. As the saying goes, it's not a bug, it's a feature. I doubt that you have the capacity or desire to change.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2022)

Jethro said:


> I think it's over the top to describe (as an example from your last post) Unfocused as making deliberate 'false statements and misinformation'. Your view is that what he is saying is wrong (and that you've already refuted it factually) and yet he keeps repeating / defending it - but I don't think Unfocused is deliberately trying to misinform people. He's putting a view which is much less technically focused than what you are (eg on the fraught Equivalence issue).


You can hold the opinion that my replies are ‘over the top’. But false statements and misinformation about objective, factual matters are just that. False.

If I posted that 2+2=3 or that hot air balloons rise into the air because they are not subject to gravity, would it be ‘your view’ that what I’m saying was wrong? If several people replied with factual evidence that the sum of 2 and 2 is 4 and that Earth’s gravity acts on all mass, and I kept posting that 2+2=3 or that gravity confuses some people so I’m just going discuss hot air, would it be ok to excuse such repeated statements as ‘less technically focused’?

We’re not talking about subjective topics. If he or anyone posts that APS-C is better than FF or that a 16-35mm lens is great for sports, I’d happily debate those viewpoints…but there’s no right or wrong involved. We are talking about objective, factual errors restated many times despite unequivocal contradictory evidence.

Let’s take a recent example from this thread:


unfocused said:


> Depth of field is not sensor dependent.
> 
> Depth of field resides solely within the lens and distance to subject.


That is patently false. A casual perusal of the Wikipedia page on DoF is all that’s needed. A white paper from Zeiss states it succinctly, “Reducing the size of the film format therefore reduces the depth of field by the crop factor.”

Now, let’s look back to this post from 2017, where after @privatebydesign and I explained the exact same concept in detail, @unfocused finally replied with, “Oh, I get it now.” Since then, he has posted that sensor size does not affect DoF on several occasions. What is that, if not _deliberately trying to misinform people_? I suppose the only viable alternative explanations are that he's not sufficiently intelligent to understand these concepts, or he has some sort of learning disability, and I don't think either is the case.

@Jethro and @Czardoom, you are welcome to defend anyone you choose, and you have the right to condone the behavior of someone who deliberately posts false information. Personally, I won't tolerate it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Do I personally feel bullied by you? No.


Good, I am glad. That is absolutely not my intent.



unfocused said:


> On the previous subject, it really comes down to different perspectives.
> 
> My training is in journalism. I have a natural inclination to take subjects and try to boil them down to the essential and easiest to understand practical application.


Simplifying a complicated concept is different than making false statements. The former is an attempt to help people understand a concept. The latter is outright lying. Somehow I doubt your training in journalism included encouraging you to make false statements.

Stating that sensor size does not affect DoF is false. Period. It's not a different perspective. It's not a simplification. It's false. If you know that you're making a false statement and you make it anyway, that's a willful lie. I wonder what those who trained you in journalism would think of one of their former students lying to the public. From what I've seen, journalists take a pretty dim view of that.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 4, 2022)

unfocused said:


> My training is in journalism...
> 
> The truth is that I have an unfair advantage in these discussions.


We have a Prime Minister who is trained in journalism. He has an interesting relationship with the truth.









Boris Johnson: What is the PM's relationship with the truth?


The PM's attitude to facts is based not on what's real, but what he wants there and then, say sources.



www.bbc.co.uk












No wonder deceit is dragging Boris Johnson under – he’s not even a good liar | Simon Jenkins


The prime minister is belatedly learning that a few jokes cannot distract from a catalogue of deceit, says Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins




www.theguardian.com


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Hey Private ! Can we talk about perspective next ?


We are! Some people have the perspective that lying is just telling the truth from a different point of view.

Oh wait, you meant this kind of perspective:



Mmmmmm, beer!


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 4, 2022)

This is an Eckhart Tolle moment (needed) if I ever saw one.


----------



## lote82 (Feb 4, 2022)

unfocused said:


> On the previous subject, it really comes down to different perspectives.


YES!
You two are like fact vs. relevance.

It is true that different sensor sizes will cause different dof!

But for me (and maybe also unfocused) it has zero practical relevance!
Why? Because I don't care about sensor sizes. I only care about images.

To give an example:
If you take a photo at same distance, with same (FF)lens, same focal length and same aperture, one with APS-C and one with FF camera, you'll get two different images. But if you crop down FF image to APS-C size to get comparable images, dof (of the cropped image!) will be the same as the APS-C image.

Distance, focal length and aperture are the only factors which do really matter regarding to dof. Because these are the only factors you can influence (at least if you only have ONE camera with you). You can walk (distance) and/or change lens (focal length) and/or change aperture, but it's impossible to change the size of the sensor in your camera. So again: Sensor size has impact on dof, but it doesn't matter because you just can't influence it in any way!

No need to freak out about scientific terms (my English is too bad to know a lot of them). In the end it only matters how you can practically use theories for your photography. I'm quite confident unfocused knows how to deal with dof even if he's not always 100% precise describing it.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 4, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> ...Cropping is exactly the same as using a smaller sensor. Ergo, if you crop all else being equal you change DoF. All else being equal includes, by definition, the same *sized *output, not scaled output.
> 
> Depth of field relies on *only two* factors after you determine what is ‘acceptable focus’. The size of the lens pupil. The size of the subject as you are looking at the image output. THAT IS IT.
> 
> Everything else in a DoF calculator is being used to determine those two numbers. Aperture, focal length, subject distance, sensor size etc etc are only relevant in determining the size of the lens pupil (not aperture) and the size of the subject as you are looking at it.


As you frequently do, you have made valid points and offered some excellent technical details. I actually have a few questions.

I'm not sure I understand this statement: "if you crop all else being equal you change DoF." 

When I first read this it sounded like you were saying that If I take a 3000 x 2000 px. image in photoshop and crop out a 1000 x 500 section of that image that the depth of field magically changes. I can understand how the perception would change if you change the viewing distance or enlarge the image, but why would the depth of field change simply by cropping an image? Certainly that image is already set in stone, so to speak, and cropping alone could not change the depth of field.

After re-reading what you wrote, I now interpret your statement to mean that cropping a full frame image down to the same dimensions as an APS-C image will produce the exact same image and depth of field. (all other factors being equal). That, by the way, is exactly what I have said in this discussion. But, is it really correct to say that you are changing the depth of field? Isn't the depth of field for that cropped portion of the image exactly the same as it was before the cropping? How could the depth of field possibly be changed by simply throwing away pixels? 

I'm also interested in your other statement: 

"Depth of field relies on *only two* factors after you determine what is ‘acceptable focus’. The size of the lens pupil. The size of the subject as you are looking at the image output. THAT IS IT."

I certainly don't disagree with your statement as a scientific fact. But from a practical matter, how does this differ from saying (as I did) that depth of field is determined by aperture, focal length and distance to subject? Hardly anyone knows the size of the lens pupil of their lenses. You probably do, but most people don't. So why is it not acceptable shorthand to use the aperture and the focal length? Two things that people do know. 

Similarly, why is "distance to subject" not an acceptable shorthand for "size of the subject as you are looking at the image output." Here, I understand that we may be talking about different things when we refer to "subject." I am thinking about the typical situation where one is taking a picture of another person. Generally speaking, how close the photographer is to that person (coupled of course, with the focal length of the lens) will determine the size of the subject as you are looking at the image output. 

In other words, if I am taking a picture of my wife with a 200mm lens on a full frame camera, I have a general idea of how much of the frame I want to fill with her face and how much I want of the background to show. I adjust my distance from subject to roughly correspond to the size of the subject that I will be looking at in the image output. At the same time, if I want to decrease the depth of field for the background, I may adjust the distance between her and the background. Again, I'd like to know why this is not acceptable shorthand for your more precise technical definition.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 4, 2022)

unfocused said:


> [..]When I first read this it sounded like you were saying that If I take a 3000 x 2000 px. image in photoshop and crop out a 1000 x 500 section of that image that the depth of field magically changes. I can understand how the perception would change if you change the viewing distance or enlarge the image, but why would the depth of field change simply by cropping an image? Certainly that image is already set in stone, so to speak, and cropping alone could not change the depth of field.[..]


I think 'cropping' in this instance means cropping the image and then enlarging that crop to be the same output size, e.g. print it to 8x12". And viewing it at the same distance.

If by cropping you mean 'take a pair of scissors and cut the portion you want out of the larger picture' and you don't change the viewing distance, then: no, DoF didn't change. But I don't think that's what being meant when people use 'crop' in this context.

I'm still unsure if I fully grasp how this all works, so I'll gladly be corrected  For most of my macro shots, I viewed them at 100% on my computer screen, regardless of which camera was used (APS-H, APS-C, FF or phone), This workflow made it very hard for me to reconcile what people were saying here and what I was seeing on my screen. I think a similar disconnect is happening when neuro and dalantech have a discussion about DoF and the MP-E65mm. But like I said, I'm unsure I fully understand this, so it's an even bigger stretch to say I understand what other people actually mean when talking about this


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 4, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I think 'cropping' in this instance means cropping the image and then enlarging that crop to be the same output size, e.g. print it to 8x12". And viewing it at the same distance.


That's correct.

We always sort of implicitly assume that final images will be viewed at the same final size, regardless of how they were collected or processed. This seems reasonable. Do you view an image differently depending on how you cropped it in post? Do you print it a different size when you change the size of the crop? Probably not.

So, yes, it's the enlargement or viewing condition that changes the DOF when you crop, but that is done *because* you cropped - to keep the final image the same size and viewed the same way.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2022)

unfocused said:


> When I first read this it sounded like you were saying that If I take a 3000 x 2000 px. image in photoshop and crop out a 1000 x 500 section of that image that the depth of field magically changes.


Yes, if you take a 3000 x 2000 px. image in photoshop and crop out a 1000 x 500 section of that image, then the depth of field for that section of the image changes. It's not magic, it's physics.



unfocused said:


> But, is it really correct to say that you are changing the depth of field? Isn't the depth of field for that cropped portion of the image exactly the same as it was before the cropping? How could the depth of field possibly be changed by simply throwing away pixels?


Yes, it is really correct and no, the depth of field for that cropped portion of the image is not the same as it was before the cropping. Again, physics.



unfocused said:


> Similarly, why is "distance to subject" not an acceptable shorthand for "size of the subject as you are looking at the image output."


Because the distance to the subject is only one factor in determining the size of the subject as you are looking at the image output. Enlargement is another factor. That means the degree of magnification required to go from the size subject as it is projected onto the sensor to the size of the subject as it appears in the output.

The assumption here is that the output is fixed, i.e. you are comparing the two images (or the full image with a section cropped from it) at the same output size and viewing distance. That assumption is made because it enables the comparison. Slightly different numbers may make it easier to discuss, I suggest a 3000x2000 pixel image and a 1500x1000 crop, e.g. 1/4 of the original image. The idea is you are comparing both of them as filling the screen of your display, or if you prefer printed as an 8x12" image. The 1500x1000 crop has to be enlarged to a greater extent than the original image to fill the display or the 12x8" print. That greater magnification results in a shallower DoF. That is how sensor size affects DoF directly – a smaller sensor needs a greater amount enlargement to produce the same final output size.

I'm sure your response will be along the lines of what @koenkooi just posted, that you want to compare the 3000x2000 pixel image printed at 8x12" with the 1500x1000 pixel image printed at 4x6". In that case, the degree of enlargement is the same so the DoF doesn't change. But that's like a stopped analog clock being right twice a day – a contrived scenario to make something correct only in a very specific set of circumstances.

If you like, you could print all your FF images at 36x24" and all your APS-C images at 22x15" and then for you, sensor size would not affect DoF in your prints. Not very realistic, is it? In the same way, you can compare the 3000x2000 pixel image viewed on a 49" display at arms length with the cropped out 1500x1000 section of that image viewed on an iPhone from across a football stadium. But that's not really a valid comparison, is it?

The point is that enlargement plays a role in determining DoF.

But the real issue here is that this has all been explained to you before. Many times. Yet you still persist in posting the same false statements and misinformation. And as long as you continue posting misinformation on this forum, people will continue countering your lies with facts.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> It seems your references use something more like the above definition of perceived image sharpness to mean "diffraction limited". To me, and to the entire astro community, "diffraction limited" means where you can't get any more resolving power, not where sharpness starts to visibly degrade.


Agreed. My original point still stands, though. Given that TDP defines DLA as the aperture at which diffraction begins to noticeably soften the image, and posts that the DLA of the 90D/M6II is f/5.2, that is not wrong. There's a semantic issue at play here, too:

*lim·it*, /ˈlimit/ _noun_​1. a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or pass.​2. a restriction on the size or amount of something permissible or possible.​
You're using the first definition of the word 'limited', the references above are using the second.

Although I don't do a significant amount of astrophotography, 'diffraction limited' also has a different connotation in the microscopy community that is similar to your point about astro. We can talk about Abbe limits, Rayleigh limits and Sparrow limits on microscopic resolution if you like. One nice benefit of fluorescence microscopy is that we can more accurately define those limits because we are working with a single wavelength or at least a very narrow band. There are also newer techniques that enable getting around the diffraction limit, collectively termed super-resolution microscopy, that allow optical resolution down to ~250 nm with visible light, which is higher frequency than visible light.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 4, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I think 'cropping' in this instance means cropping the image and then enlarging that crop to be the same output size, e.g. print it to 8x12". And viewing it at the same distance.
> 
> If by cropping you mean 'take a pair of scissors and cut the portion you want out of the larger picture' and you don't change the viewing distance, then: no, DoF didn't change. But I don't think that's what being meant when people use 'crop' in this context.
> 
> I'm still unsure if I fully grasp how this all works, so I'll gladly be corrected  For most of my macro shots, I viewed them at 100% on my computer screen, regardless of which camera was used (APS-H, APS-C, FF or phone), This workflow made it very hard for me to reconcile what people were saying here and what I was seeing on my screen. I think a similar disconnect is happening when neuro and dalantech have a discussion about DoF and the MP-E65mm. But like I said, I'm unsure I fully understand this, so it's an even bigger stretch to say I understand what other people actually mean when talking about this



You are correct, in that instance you are not looking at equivalent (same sized) images. There has to be a baseline in any comparison, comparing a large print to a small print is not a fair or direct comparison so is not what people who bang on about equivalence are referring to.


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 4, 2022)

AlanF said:


> We have a Prime Minister who is trained in journalism. He has an interesting relationship with the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The last thing Boris needs now is to be attacked on Canon Rumors.
He never made any claims about sensor size and depth of field.
He only said the chances of getting a shallow depth of field with an Olympus micro 4/3are the same as getting decapitated by a frisbee or of finding Elvis.
It could be the last straw and force him to resign  fire some more minions


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Agreed. My original point still stands, though. Given that TDP defines DLA as the aperture at which diffraction begins to noticeably soften the image, and posts that the DLA of the 90D/M6II is f/5.2, that is not wrong.


I still think it's the wrong thing to do, and I'll tell you why. It gives less technically-inclined people the idea that there's no point in shooting at f-stops slower than they define as the DLA. That idea is wrong in a whole bunch of ways but that chart will leave that idea in people's minds. I know this because I've had people say things to me like, "I like my D700 because I can shoot it at f/12 whereas the 5DsR limits me to f/6" or things like that, which is entirely bogus (and I'm sure you're aware of that and the reasons why).


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 4, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I'm not sure I understand this statement: "if you crop all else being equal you change DoF."
> 
> When I first read this it sounded like you were saying that If I take a 3000 x 2000 px. image in photoshop and crop out a 1000 x 500 section of that image that the depth of field magically changes. I can understand how the perception would change if you change the viewing distance or enlarge the image, but why would the depth of field change simply by cropping an image? Certainly that image is already set in stone, so to speak, and cropping alone could not change the depth of field.
> 
> After re-reading what you wrote, I now interpret your statement to mean that cropping a full frame image down to the same dimensions as an APS-C image will produce the exact same image and depth of field. (all other factors being equal). That, by the way, is exactly what I have said in this discussion. But, is it really correct to say that you are changing the depth of field? Isn't the depth of field for that cropped portion of the image exactly the same as it was before the cropping? How could the depth of field possibly be changed by simply throwing away pixels?


I think the aspect of this you truly don’t grasp is that the final output magnification (how big the subject is on screen or in print and how close you are to it) is fundamental not only to equivalence but to depth of field as well.

In your first scenario where you simply crop out the center 1000 x 500 pixels of your 3000 x 2000 image and that center section remains the same size then the dof stays the same, however *that is not equivalence* because your image is now smaller. If you enlarge that center section to the same area of your original image then yes, the dof reduces. You are applying a crop factor of 0.31 so your dof reduces by that factor. That is if your uncropped image was shot at f4 the cropped portion when reproduced at the same area as the entire shot has 4 x 0.31 applied, or equivalent dof of f1.24.

In a real world situation like that you are talking about the ‘focal length limited’ situation. Do this to prove this to yourself. Take a picture of a distant small bird at f8, your dof calculator says at f8 and the focus distance you should have 18” of depth of field. When the entire image is on your screen the bird looks totally in focus. Now zoom in to 100%, that is the same as cropping or using a crop sensor. Suddenly only half the bird is in focus, what changed? Only the magnification. But if we agree that is the same as cropping or using a crop camera that proves that to all intent and in practical understanding the sensor size (or the amount of a sensor area you use) impacts the dof.

Don't forget dof is what is in acceptable focus. In the entire frame the bird is entirely acceptably sharp, yet when viewed at a larger magnification suddenly the tail feathers and one foot are not acceptably sharp.



unfocused said:


> I'm also interested in your other statement:
> 
> "Depth of field relies on *only two* factors after you determine what is ‘acceptable focus’. The size of the lens pupil. The size of the subject as you are looking at the image output. THAT IS IT."
> 
> ...


Because aperture, focal length and distance to subject don't include other variables required to determine dof; magnification and 'acceptable focus'. It's like asking the question 2x?=?, your wording doesn't give anybody enough information to determine the dof. Find a dof calculator that only requires aperture, focal length and distance to subject to work out the dof, they all require more information than that, principally sensor size. Sensor size determines the CoC or commonly accepted 'acceptably sharp', and once you know that CoC, or factor for acceptably sharp, you can determine the rest. But it is all predicated on same sized output in your comparison.

Distance to subject in isolation tells you nothing about dof.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> Find a dof calculator that only requires aperture, focal length and distance to subject to work out the dof, they all require more information than that, principally sensor size. Sensor size determines the CoC or commonly accepted 'acceptably sharp', and once you know that CoC, or factor for acceptably sharp, you can determine the rest. But it is all predicated on same sized output in your comparison.


Tried that approach. But hey, maybe the second third eighth seventeenth try will succeed.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 4, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> I think the aspect of this you truly don’t grasp is that the final output magnification (how big the subject is on screen or in print and how close you are to it) is fundamental not only to equivalence but to depth of field as well.
> 
> In your first scenario where you simply crop out the center 1000 x 500 pixels of your 3000 x 2000 image and that center section remains the same size then the dof stays the same, however *that is not equivalence* because your image is now smaller. If you enlarge that center section to the same area of your original image then yes, the dof reduces.


This is all correct, I'm just going to provide a visual aid. Same image.


----------



## tbgtomcom (Feb 4, 2022)

I was watching a Peter Gregg video on this rumor, he specifically mentioned this site. He's saying there's no way that this would be a crop sensor camera because it's a single digit camera model number. Apparently Peter never heard of the 7D which was crop sensor even though the 1D, 5D and 6D were all full frame. I'm encouraged by the talk of a crop sensor for the lineup and hope that it uses the 90D sensor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2022)

tbgtomcom said:


> I was watching a Peter Gregg video on this rumor, he specifically mentioned this site. He's saying there's no way that this would be a crop sensor camera because it's a single digit camera model number. Apparently Peter never heard of the 7D which was crop sensor even though the 1D, 5D and 6D were all full frame. I'm encouraged by the talk of a crop sensor for the lineup and hope that it uses the 90D sensor.


I guess he's never heard of the M2, M3, M5 or M6 either.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 4, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> The last thing Boris needs now is to be attacked on Canon Rumors.
> He never made any claims about sensor size and depth of field.
> He only said the chances of getting a shallow depth of field with an Olympus micro 4/3are the same as getting decapitated by a frisbee or of finding Elvis.
> It could be the last straw and force him to resign  fire some more minions


Did you mean his getting even a shallow depth of feeling?


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 4, 2022)

tbgtomcom said:


> I was watching a Peter Gregg video on this rumor, he specifically mentioned this site. He's saying there's no way that this would be a crop sensor camera because it's a single digit camera model number. Apparently Peter never heard of the 7D which was crop sensor even though the 1D, 5D and 6D were all full frame. I'm encouraged by the talk of a crop sensor for the lineup and hope that it uses the 90D sensor.


Does he have a video on equivalence?


----------



## unfocused (Feb 4, 2022)

First of all, thanks for responding in a polite and reasonable manner. I really need to get some work done this afternoon, but I also want to beat this dead horse just a bit longer because I think you and I are pretty close to understanding one another. My apologies to all the other forum participants who have had to endure this overly long discussion.



privatebydesign said:


> I think the aspect of this you truly don’t grasp is that the final output magnification (how big the subject is on screen or in print and how close you are to it) is fundamental not only to equivalence but to depth of field as well.



It's not that I don't grasp this. It is that I thought it was so self-evident that it didn't need to be said. 



privatebydesign said:


> In your first scenario where you simply crop out the center 1000 x 500 pixels of your 3000 x 2000 image and that center section remains the same size then the dof stays the same,



Yes, and that's really been my point all along.



privatebydesign said:


> ...however *that is not equivalence* because your image is now smaller. If you enlarge that center section to the same area of your original image then yes, the dof reduces...



Totally understand. My error here is in the technical definition of equivalence. I believe the point you are trying to make is that when you use "equivalence" in respect to depth of field, you are using it to describe all the elements from exposure to final output, which are needed to produce an "equivalent" image. 

Please indulge me for a minute here. I've long since surrendered on the use of equivalence in this way. I personally don't like it because I think it leads to confusion. I have seen too many examples here on this forum where the concept is "explained" to new photographers who then walk away thinking that an exposure of f5.6 - 1/125 sec. - ISO 400 will be different depending on the size of the sensor because someone has said that a f5.6 lens on a full frame camera is "equivalent" to an f8 lens on a crop sensor camera. To explain it simply, it's as though light meters (which you and I remember) factor in the size of the film and give a different exposure if you are using 135mm film or 120 film.

My distaste for the term is solely based on trying to avoid that confusion, but frankly, I've given up on trying to convince others to avoid using the term. 



privatebydesign said:


> ...You are applying a crop factor...In the entire frame the bird is entirely acceptably sharp, yet when viewed at a larger magnification suddenly the tail feathers and one foot are not acceptably sharp.



Never disputed any of this, never thought it was part of the discussion. 

What seems to have set people off was that I tried to make the point that, all other things being equal, there is not going to be any difference in depth of field between a picture taken with a crop sensor camera and one taken with a full frame camera and cropped to the same dimensions. Exactly what you have said, but for some reason this seems to upset others. The only way that this is not true is if you begin to introduce other variables -- changing where you are standing, enlarging one image more than another, switching lenses, etc. 

It's exactly the scenario we started with. If this is different from what you are saying, please explain.

As for the rest of your post, I'll accept your understanding of DOF calculation, because I have never had the need to do an extensive precise depth of field calculation. Like most people, if I want to get an idea about depth of field, I just press the depth of field preview button.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 4, 2022)

unfocused said:


> What seems to have set people off was that I tried to make the point that, all other things being equal, there is not going to be any difference in depth of field between a picture taken with a crop sensor camera and one taken with a full frame camera and cropped to the same dimensions.


I don't believe that to be true, certainly people that understand equivalence would say the same thing, can you point me to posters that have said otherwise? All other things being equal includes viewing the subject at the same size.



unfocused said:


> I have seen too many examples here on this forum where the concept is "explained" to new photographers who then walk away thinking that an exposure of f5.6 - 1/125 sec. - ISO 400 will be different depending on the size of the sensor


The exposure won't be different, the image characteristics, principally the depth of field and noise will be different depending on the sensor size/film size.



unfocused said:


> My error here is in the technical definition of equivalence.


That is a semantic argument the like of which you often accuse others of. There is no difference between the definition of equivalence and the 'technical definition' of equivalence. You are either comparing apples to apples or you are not. You are comparing same sized reproduction ratio/magnification or you are not.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 4, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> The exposure won't be different, the image characteristics, principally the depth of field and noise will be different depending on the sensor size/film size.



Right. What I am saying is that new photographers who read this forum get confused between equivalence as it relates to depth of field and exposure equivalence and come away thinking that sensor size affects exposure. They get that impression because some people (not you) make statements like "an f5.6 lens on full frame is equivalent to an f8 lens on a crop sensor," without explaining that they are referring to depth of field and not exposure. 



privatebydesign said:


> That is a semantic argument the like of which you often accuse others of. There is no difference between the definition of equivalence and the 'technical definition' of equivalence. You are either comparing apples to apples or you are not. You are comparing same sized reproduction ratio/magnification or you are not.



Sorry, I apparently didn't write this clearly enough. What I was trying to say is that equivalence has multiple definitions and they are context dependent. As we just referenced, exposure equivalence is not the same as depth-of-field equivalence. Alfred Stieglitz referred to his photographs of clouds as Equivalents, meaning they were equivalent to his thought, hopes, aspirations, despairs and fears. I did not mean anything negative by using the word "technical."


----------



## Jethro (Feb 4, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> This is all correct, I'm just going to provide a visual aid. Same image.
> 
> View attachment 202388


That was really useful, thank you ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 5, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> This is all correct, I'm just going to provide a visual aid. Same image.


Your example sums up that particular issue very effectively:



If I may be permitted to take a liberty with your example, the scenario that @unfocused seems fixated on is this one:



I don't think anyone would suggest that there's a difference in the DoF between those two images. But I don't think many people would see any point in comparing those two images.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 5, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Please indulge me for a minute here. I've long since surrendered on the use of equivalence in this way. I personally don't like it because I think it leads to confusion. I have seen too many examples here on this forum where the concept is "explained" to new photographers who then walk away thinking that an exposure of f5.6 - 1/125 sec. - ISO 400 will be different depending on the size of the sensor because someone has said that a f5.6 lens on a full frame camera is "equivalent" to an f8 lens on a crop sensor camera. To explain it simply, it's as though light meters (which you and I remember) factor in the size of the film and give a different exposure if you are using 135mm film or 120 film.
> 
> My distaste for the term is solely based on trying to avoid that confusion, but frankly, I've given up on trying to convince others to avoid using the term.


The way to avoid that confusion, and the one I personally prefer, is not to teach people new to photography the concept or math of "exposure". Exposure was invented to describe relevant parameters to chemical photography. It's simply not relevant in digital photography because we have a third parameter that's easily and quickly accessible to adjust final image brightness - amplification. Whether that's accomplished in analog with ISO, in digital with digital ISO or in post in some way doesn't really matter, it all renders the concept of exposure meaningless in digital photography.

For equivalence between images across formats, what matters is total captured light, and that's where equivalent f-stop is useful for comparisons among people used to or who learned on chemical photography and are thus familiar with exposure (illuminance-time product).


----------



## JasonL (Feb 5, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> That might be true if the owner also owns a FF body. Otherwise, the R7 also would need a wide zoom, perhaps a 10-20 f/4 and a fast and small 30mm prime.
> 
> If Canon makes an R7, might they also introduce an M7 that is 90-95% common with the R7?



I really don't think the R7 (if at the 7D2 level) would be for folks using wide angle lenses. This would be for the amateur looking for a quality alternative to dropping $20K on a pro sports/wildlife kit. Anyone looking to use the R7 as a landscape, etc. camera would probably be better suited looking at the R6. Hopefully the R7 will fall around $2500, 30mpix, with R5/6 autofocus, and great low light sensor performance. I bet Canon knows that if they can deliver that they will have an instant winner with amateur sports/wildlife shooters.


----------



## lote82 (Feb 6, 2022)

JasonL said:


> I really don't think the R7 (if at the 7D2 level) would be for folks using wide angle lenses. This would be for the amateur looking for a quality alternative to dropping $20K on a pro sports/wildlife kit. Anyone looking to use the R7 as a landscape, etc. camera would probably be better suited looking at the R6. Hopefully the R7 will fall around $2500, 30mpix, with R5/6 autofocus, and great low light sensor performance. I bet Canon knows that if they can deliver that they will have an instant winner with amateur sports/wildlife shooters.


I don't think so. Maybe sports shooters aren't interested in wide angle lenses. But as a wildlife photographer it does make sense to have a wide angle lens with you. If you go hiking you are already packed with (not only but mostly) heavy tele-lenses. Having only one small and light wide angle lens (especially Aps-c only) can give you additional landscape shots while hiking. If you ask me landscape is part of "wildlife" shooting. Maybe it's only me, but I would never take an additional ff body with ff wide angle lens with me, at least for hiking.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 6, 2022)

lote82 said:


> I don't think so. Maybe sports shooters aren't interested in wide angle lenses. But as a wildlife photographer it does make sense to have a wide angle lens with you. If you go hiking you are already packed with (not only but mostly) heavy tele-lenses. Having only one small and light wide angle lens (especially Aps-c only) can give you additional landscape shots while hiking. If you ask me landscape is part of "wildlife" shooting. Maybe it's only me, but I would never take an additional ff body with ff wide angle lens with me, at least for hiking.


The 10-22 was a great fit on the 7D


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Feb 6, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> Honestly, the only real crop-dedicated lens a R7 needs is something like a APS-C RF-S 15-50mm F/2.8. Anything longer and you might as well just get the RF 100-400 or RF 600, both of which really don't cost all that much to begin with.


A wider and better version of EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 would be very fine with me too.
I also have the EF-S 15-85mm which I consider my 1st choice for standard zoom. For me that is so well balanced between size/weight, versatility and performance, than I hardly can imagine Canon could improve it much in an RF version.

But if Canon was to make one and _only one_ APS-C lens for RF mount, my vote would go for something a bit wider than the EF-S 10-22mm & EF-S 10-18mm zooms. I imagine with the shorter flangle distance of RF mount it would be possible to make a wider zoom without sacrificing optical performance or size/weight. Something like a 9-20mm or maybe even an 8-18mm? I have Sigma's 8-16mm, but besides being a little short in the long end, it is too heavy to qualify as the default wide-angle zoom in my camera-bag.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Feb 6, 2022)

JasonL said:


> I really don't think the R7 (if at the 7D2 level) would be for folks using wide angle lenses. This would be for the amateur looking for a quality alternative to dropping $20K on a pro sports/wildlife kit. Anyone looking to use the R7 as a landscape, etc. camera would probably be better suited looking at the R6.


I would, and already do with my 7DII. The 7DII is a not lightweight in itself, but it has by far the best controls, features and performance for me (compared to APS-C alternatives), which is absolute top priority for my camera (I'm an allrounder, but also enjoys shooting wildlife and action).

Btw, I also have the R6 because I couldn't wait to try Animal AF. The R6 is a great camera, but APS-C is still what I want because of the system I can build around it is (for me) a better balance between size/weight, versatility and performance. I have a broad collection of lenses, but my standard APS-C based kit covering (fullframe equivalent) 16-400mm, would be much too heavy to carry around as my standard kit if it was a fullframe kit:
7DII + EF-S 10-22mm + EF-S 15-85mm + EF-S 55-250mm *= 2245g* (1335g lenses only)

I also have wider/faster/longer/better lenses which I can swap or add to my kit depending on what my plans are for the day. But that lens-trio fills my bag 90% of the time. And I could further (and are considering it) trim the weight of the APS-C kit by replacing the EF-S 10-22mm with the EF-S 10-18mm. People tell me it is optically equally good.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 6, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> I would, and already do with my 7DII. The 7DII is a not lightweight in itself, but it has by far the best controls and features for me (compared to APS-C alternatives), which is absolute top priority for my camera (I'm an allrounder, but also enjoys shooting wildlife and action).
> 
> Btw, I also have the R6 because I couldn't wait to try Animal AF. The R6 is a great camera, but APS-C is still what I want because of the system I can build around it is (for me) a better balance between size/weight, versatility and performance. I have a broad collection of lenses, but my standard APS-C based kit covering (fullframe equivalent) 16-400mm, would be much too heavy to carry around as my standard kit if it was a fullframe kit:
> 7DII + EF-S 10-22mm + EF-S 15-85mm + EF-S 55-250mm *= 2245g* (1335g lenses only)
> ...


Canon R5 + RF 16mm + RF 24-105mm f/7.1 + RF 100-400mm = 2328g. This covers your FF-equivalent 16-400mm, and because the R5 has a pixel density only slightly less than the 7DII, it has much more reach than 250mm on the 7DII.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Feb 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Canon R5 + RF 16mm + RF 24-105mm f/7.1 + RF 100-400mm = 2328g. This covers your FF-equivalent 16-400mm, and because the R5 has a pixel density only slightly less than the 7DII, it has much more reach than 250mm on the 7DII.


It doesn't _cover_. There's a big (and _very_ important) hole from 16 up to 24mm. Big loss.

Also I don't think the RF 16mm and RF 24-105mm f/7.1 are up to the optical performance I want. I considered the RF 24-105/7.1 STM to my R6, to have "something". But choose the EF 24-105 STM instead because the quality in wideangle corners looked too bad to me on the RF lens. I don't know if that was a good choice or not. But I suspect at least the EF and RF lens are very similar when it comes to optical performance. I do not consider myself a pixel-peeper, but I have to say the EF 24-105 STM was a huge impulsive disappointment when I saw my first results from that lens. But considering that both the EF and the RF lens are (less than?) half the price of what I gave for the EF-S lens, I probably shouldn't have been surprised.

Which brings me to another point about Canon's fullframe lenses for both EF and RF mount. They totally lack something between budget and L-lenses when it comes to wideangle zooms and normal-zooms. USM zooms that are close or comparable to L-lens optical performance, but in a more lightweight variable-aperture build would be much more appealing to me, but totally lacks in Canon's lineup. Yes, I know it won't completely solve my weight problem, that's why I go for APS-C. But it would still make fullframe look much more appealing to me.
And you can call the EF-S 55-250mm from my APS-C kit a budget lens - and it kind of is. But optically it is actually really good.

RF 100-400mm is however a great addition to Canon's fullframe lineup. I have bought it. Partly for my R6, but hopefully also for my future R7  (I also dream about the 100-500L, and will probably start saving, if I get that R7;-))


----------



## lote82 (Feb 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Canon R5 + RF 16mm + RF 24-105mm f/7.1 + RF 100-400mm = 2328g. This covers your FF-equivalent 16-400mm, and because the R5 has a pixel density only slightly less than the 7DII, it has much more reach than 250mm on the 7DII.


1. R5 is mirrorless and therefore lighter. Wait for the R7 to make a fair comparison.

2. Keep the cost factor in mind... I'm too lazy to look for the cost of R5 with all these lenses... But I think it's far beyond any fair comparison.

3. There is quite a heavy gap between 16 and 24 mm.

4. I sometimes take the combination of 7DII with ef-s 10-18mm, ef-s 16-300mm and ef 160-600mm(C). I don't know (and don't care about) the exact weight, but there is no gap between focal lengths. It gives you a (seamless!) FF-equivalence of 16-960mm(!). Additionally it is much cheaper ...

I know the quality will not keep up with R5. But when it comes down to zoom range, reach, portability and price ff is not the "best" option.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 6, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> It doesn't _cover_. There's a big (and _very_ important) hole from 16 up to 24mm. Big loss.
> 
> Also I don't think the RF 16mm and RF 24-105mm f/7.1 are up to the optical performance I want. I considered the RF 24-105/7.1 STM to my R6, to have "something". But choose the EF 24-105 STM instead because the quality in wideangle corners looked too bad to me on the RF lens. I don't know if that was a good choice or not. But I suspect at least the EF and RF lens are very similar when it comes to optical performance. I do not consider myself a pixel-peeper, but I have to say the EF 24-105 STM was a huge impulsive disappointment when I saw my first results from that lens. But considering that both the EF and the RF lens are (less than?) half the price of what I gave for the EF-S lens, I probably shouldn't have been surprised.
> 
> ...


There is not a hole from 16 up to 24mm. Switch the R5 to crop mode and you have the same field of view with the 16mm as 25.6mm on the 7DII with nearly the same number of pixels. Or, you can get the same zoom range by cropping in post to any field of view between 16mm and 25.6mm.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 6, 2022)

lote82 said:


> 1. R5 is mirrorless and therefore lighter. Wait for the R7 to make a fair comparison.
> 
> 2. Keep the cost factor in mind... I'm too lazy to look for the cost of R5 with all these lenses... But I think it's far beyond any fair comparison.
> 
> ...


I wasn't making a "fair comparison". I was replying specifically to a post about the weight of the 7DII with lenses compared to FF mirrorless. And, you have missed the same point that cropping 16mm on a high density FF sensor will give you the same range of field of view as a 16-24mm zoom on APS-C. I am not making that last point for the sake of argument, but it is one I make practical use of when using telephoto primes: a 500mm prime on FF gives me the equivalent of a 312-500mm on APS-C.

I suggest you overcome your laziness and look at the cost of the RF 16mm f/2.8, RF 24-105mm f/7.1 and RF 100-400mm. They are remarkably cheap. The 100-400mm for example is about $700 or €700.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Feb 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> There is not a hole from 16 up to 24mm. Switch the R5 to crop mode and you have the same field of view with the 16mm as 25.6mm on the 7DII with nearly the same number of pixels. Or, you can get the same zoom range by cropping in post to any field of view between 16mm and 25.6mm.



Besides my concerns about the optical quality of the 16mm, I'm really trying to create myself a _great tool(kit)_. People always throw the "you just buy an R5 and crop" after me when discussing APS-C/R7. On paper that probably looks good. But in practice that's nowhere the optimized tool I'm trying to create myself. Being able to zoom and see the photo fill the frame in viewfinder is super-important for me when judging photo and composition.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 6, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Besides my concerns about the optical quality of the 16mm, I'm really trying to create myself a _great tool(kit)_. People always throw the "you just buy an R5 and crop" after me when discussing APS-C/R7. On paper that probably looks good. But in practice that's nowhere the optimized tool I'm trying to create myself. Being able to zoom and see the photo fill the frame in viewfinder is super-important for me when judging photo and composition.


That's a valid choice. I am just used to cropping in post for nearly everything I do and composing then. Despite my preference for FF, I may well buy an R7 as a back-up/alternative if it has the right AF specs and sensor as I end up cropping so much anyway. So many of my birds in fast flight have the bird at the edge of the frame, the FF gives me more keepers.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 6, 2022)

JasonL said:


> I really don't think the R7 (if at the 7D2 level) would be for folks using wide angle lenses.


Oh, really.

I have a 7DII and my lens kit includes the 8-15/4L and the 10-18STM.


----------



## lote82 (Feb 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I wasn't making a "fair comparison". I was replying specifically to a post about the weight of the 7DII with lenses compared to FF mirrorless. And, you have missed the same point that cropping 16mm on a high density FF sensor will give you the same range of field of view as a 16-24mm zoom on APS-C. I am not making that last point for the sake of argument, but it is one I make practical use of when using telephoto primes: a 500mm prime on FF gives me the equivalent of a 312-500mm on APS-C.
> 
> I suggest you overcome your laziness and look at the cost of the RF 16mm f/2.8, RF 24-105mm f/7.1 and RF 100-400mm. They are remarkably cheap. The 100-400mm for example is about $700 or €700.


I'm well aware you can crop! But R5 in crop mode has only 17mp (vs. 7DII 20mp). Paying (a lot) more to get less is not a good option!

A 500mm prime on FF gives you the equivalent of a 312-500mm on APS-C?
Nice, but a 500mm prime on APS-C therefore gives me 800mm (without croping!) on ff. When I buy a tele lens I'm rather interested in the long end than the short end.

Don't get me wrong ... if I would own an R5 I also (probably) wouldn't wait for an R7 to come. R5 with shorter reach but overall better image quality is the better choice for you. I can absolutely understand that. But there are also people like me who prefer more reach at lower costs.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 6, 2022)

lote82 said:


> I'm well aware you can crop! But R5 in crop mode has only 17mp (vs. 7DII 20mp). Paying (a lot) more to get less is not a good option!


The difference between 20 and 17.57 Mp (it's 17.57 not 17 Mp) is only 6.6% in magnification, which you would hardly notice. But, in any case, 16mm cropped to 24mm of the R5 puts exactly 20 Mp on target, the same as the 7Dii!



lote82 said:


> A 500mm prime on FF gives you the equivalent of a 312-500mm on APS-C?
> Nice, but a 500mm prime on APS-C therefore gives me 800mm (without croping!) on ff. When I buy a tele lens I'm rather interested in the long end than the short end.


Look, cropping 500mm lens on the FF to APS-C size gives exactly the same field of view as putting a 500mm lens on an APS-C. The reach depends on the relative pixel densities of the sensors. I used to to shoot both a 7DII and the 5DSR - they give exactly the same reach as the 5DSR cropped gives the same 20 Mp as the 7DII, and the D850 and D500, which I also shot does the same. So, if you consider the 500mm on the APS-C is equivalent to an 800mm lens on FF, then having the same lens on FF and cropping to APS-C gives you 800mm.



lote82 said:


> Don't get me wrong ... if I would own an R5 I also (probably) wouldn't wait for an R7 to come. R5 with shorter reach but overall better image quality is the better choice for you. I can absolutely understand that. But there are also people like me who prefer more reach at lower costs.


The only advantage for most is indeed the price. And that is a good enough reason for buying an APS-C. And that is precisely the reason I would buy an R7 as a back-up for the R5. I would prefer that the R7 had a 24 Mp sensor to give it a boost in reach. The R5 gives a theoretical reach of 93.4% of that of the current 7DII, and because it has a weaker AA-filter probably has more than 100% of the 7DII reach.


----------



## lote82 (Feb 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The difference between 20 and 17.57 Mp (it's 17.57 not 17 Mp) is only 6.6% in magnification, which you would hardly notice. But, in any case, 16mm cropped to 24mm of the R5 puts exactly 20 Mp on target, the same as the 7Dii!


True, but still a lot of money to get (only in best case scenario!) the same amount of pixels.



AlanF said:


> So, if you consider the 500mm on the APS-C is equivalent to an 800mm lens on FF, then having the same lens on FF and cropping to APS-C gives you 800mm.


True, but again ... a lot of money to get slightly lower amount of pixels. By the way, it's rather 17,58mp ;-)



AlanF said:


> The only advantage for most is indeed the price. And that is a good enough reason for buying an APS-C. And that is precisely the reason I would buy an R7 as a back-up for the R5. I would prefer that the R7 had a 24 Mp sensor to give it a boost in reach. The R5 gives a theoretical reach of 93.4% of that of the current 7DII, and because it has a weaker AA-filter probably has more than 100% of the 7DII reach.


Probably true (even if I'm not sure about the AA-filter). Why you would prefer 24mp instead of 32mp? Because of diffraction limit?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 6, 2022)

lote82 said:


> True, but still a lot of money to get (only in best case scenario!) the same amount of pixels.
> 
> 
> True, but again ... a lot of money to get slightly lower amount of pixels. By the way, it's rather 17,58mp ;-)
> ...


Discussed earlier in this thread https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-to-be-announced-cr2.41232/page-6#post-924169 post 105 onwards. In theory, you should increase resolution with a 32 Mp over a 24 Mp. But, I would like to see what it is like in practice. You do need wider lenses to take advantage of these very dense sensors.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Feb 7, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I am a bit late here, absorbed by work, but if the R7 has decent specs, I hit the button. Like many 7D2 owners I am waiting since many years now for an update. My 7DII still works reliably w/o failures, like an old tank, but a better AF and less noisy sensor would already be a reason to upgrade. A fully articulating touchscreen and better video would be welcomed, too... so, please, c'mon Canon!


----------



## unfocused (Feb 7, 2022)

justaCanonuser said:


> I am a bit late here…


You didn’t miss anything.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Feb 8, 2022)

justaCanonuser said:


> I am a bit late here,





unfocused said:


> You didn’t miss anything.



Ha ha. I was late too. I read first and last page (p14) of comments.
Some day I might look at what I (maybe not) missed 

But there's definitely a tendency to all these R7/APSC discussions goes in same directions and tracks we're been down before...


----------



## justaCanonuser (Feb 8, 2022)

unfocused said:


> You didn’t miss anything.


But that's the essence of rumors in general


----------



## justaCanonuser (Feb 8, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> But there's definitely a tendency to all these R7/APSC discussions goes in same directions and tracks we're been down before...


It's been so far definitely a "Groundhog Day" sort of thread , but finally and luckily, like Bill Murray, we may find a way out of this time loop trap and get from Canon what we want - a capable 7D2 ML successor...


----------



## SteveC (Feb 8, 2022)

justaCanonuser said:


> It's been so far definitely a "Groundhog Day" sort of thread , but finally and luckily, like Bill Murray, we may find a way out of this time loop trap and get from Canon what we want - a capable 7D2 ML successor...



WoooHooo, the M7 I've been waiting for!!!!

(Ducks a barrage of thrown dead lenses and camera bodies.)


----------



## Midge (Feb 8, 2022)

justaCanonuser said:


> I am a bit late here, absorbed by work, but if the R7 has decent specs, I hit the button. Like many 7D2 owners I am waiting since many years now for an update. My 7DII still works reliably w/o failures, like an old tank, but a better AF and less noisy sensor would already be a reason to upgrade. A fully articulating touchscreen and better video would be welcomed, too... so, please, c'mon Canon!


Agreed. Just for a change, instead of people naysaying 7Dmk2 owners over a mirrorless APS-C replacement, let us get on with it. Canon has a market for these despite what many others might think. If you dont like the idea, dont go there. Leave it for the enthusiasts who DO want such a camera


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 8, 2022)

Midge said:


> Agreed. Just for a change, instead of people naysaying 7Dmk2 owners over a mirrorless APS-C replacement, let us get on with it. Canon has a market for these despite what many others might think. If you dont like the idea, dont go there. Leave it for the enthusiasts who DO want such a camera


I'm not sure this is an issue. For years quite a few folks here who have been 7D and 7D2 users have been eagerly waiting for a mirrorless version. They shoot tele and wide both. They crave weather sealing, top notch Servo, not too small of a body (like how the 7D series is similar to the 5D) fast fps and after the M6ll got it's sensor, that has ignited the cravings even more so. However, no matter what we here and our friends may think, it may not jive with Canon Inc and their market research. We get what we get.


----------



## Midge (Feb 8, 2022)

I know what you are saying. We will still have to wait and see. This rumour has been going on for a few years now so it may still prove to be real. Who knows? Hope we do get an R7 with comparable specs to the 7Dmk2 build wise and a decent sensor. Ah ,we can hope!!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> However, no matter what we here and our friends may think, it may not jive with Canon Inc and their market research. We get what we get.


Exactly. This forum is not very representative of the broader market, and it’s that broader market about which Canon cares. Not that rumors are worth much, but the one from a week before this suggested, “Maybe a little M50 mixed with some 7D.” To me, that sounds a lot like a mirrorless 90D. Given that the 90D was a big step toward the 7DII from the 80D, I think a mirrorless 90D is the best case scenario for those hoping for a mirrorless 7DIII (with whatever designation).

Hapving said that, I’m still not convinced we’ll see an APS-C RF mount body at all.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 8, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> I'm not sure this is an issue. For years quite a few folks here who have been 7D and 7D2 users have been eagerly waiting for a mirrorless version.


Really? I've been waiting for a *new* version, but I don't see any reason for it to be mirrorless. For what I do, EVFs provide all disadvantages and no advantages on stills. The only advantage is for shooting video.

What I actually want is a 7DIII with the 90D (or M6II? whatever that is) sensor.

Seems like that's impossible so I'm either going to have to learn to get used to an EVF (I've had, I think 7 compacts with EVFs and camcorders starting in the 80s, and they all suck) or use my 7DII for the rest of my life. Either that or they will have to make an EVF that doesn't suck.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 8, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> Really? I've been waiting for a *new* version, but I don't see any reason for it to be mirrorless. For what I do, EVFs provide all disadvantages and no advantages on stills. The only advantage is for shooting video.
> 
> What I actually want is a 7DIII with the 90D (or M6II? whatever that is) sensor.
> 
> Seems like that's impossible so I'm either going to have to learn to get used to an EVF (I've had, I think 7 compacts with EVFs and camcorders starting in the 80s, and they all suck) or use my 7DII for the rest of my life. Either that or they will have to make an EVF that doesn't suck.


Get thineself to ye olde camera store post haste! The R5/6 evf's are much improved over the older tech..I was a mirrorless holdout for my main body until I tried them and I'm now sold.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 8, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Get thineself to ye olde camera store post haste! The R5/6 evf's are much improved over the older tech..I was a mirrorless holdout for my main body until I tried them and I'm now sold.


And yet, someone in this very thread owns an R5 and complained about all the same issues I've had with every EVF I've ever tried.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 8, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> And yet, someone in this very thread owns an R5 and complained about all the same issues I've had with every EVF I've ever tried.


They are far from perfect, my point was that they have gotten much better. Case in point, seeing my R6 and my spouse's M50 side by side, it's crazy how less contrasty and quicker they've become.
However when you have used an OVF such as a 1D series for years, it may still not be time for you to switch yet, ymmv. 
I have zero experience with the R3 and would love to hear users chime in on their experience since it's the top of the Canon line for viewfinders.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 9, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Case in point, seeing my R6 and my spouse's M50 side by side, it's crazy how less contrasty and quicker they've become.


Really ? I thought that the R6 had the same viewfinder as the R, and the M50 the same as the RP. Personally I don’t see a game changing difference between the R and the RP. No doubt people will say I have to try the R5 or R3 and so it will go on, but is the viewfinder on the R3 a different experience to that of the R ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> …is the viewfinder on the R3 a different experience to that of the R ?


Very.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 9, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Really ? I thought that the R6 had the same viewfinder as the R, and the M50 the same as the RP. Personally I don’t see a game changing difference between the R and the RP. No doubt people will say I have to try the R5 or R3 and so it will go on, but is the viewfinder on the R3 a different experience to that of the R ?


There are more to certain EVF's than dots, refresh rates such as the 120 on the R6 makes considerable differences.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 9, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> There are more to certain EVF's than dots, refresh rates such as the 120 on the R6 makes considerable differences.


Does refresh rate effect the contrast then ? Excuse my ignorance if there’s a obvious answer to this.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 9, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Does refresh rate effect the contrast then ? Excuse my ignorance if there’s a obvious answer to this.


Not really.

The problems are, lag (even worse in low-light), lack of dynamic range (both instantaneous and global), slow response to changes in lighting (viewfinder goes completely black or completely white), noise in low-light, and to a lesser extent, resolution (they use "dots" instead of "pixels" to hide the fact that they are low-res microdisplays). Oh...and power draw. It's not uncommon for me to use the viewfinder for 3 hours straight and shoot 2,000+ shots on one battery in my 7DII.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 9, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Really ? I thought that the R6 had the same viewfinder as the R, and the M50 the same as the RP.[..]


The RP and M50 share the same LCD in the EVF, but not the optics. The optics in the RP EVF are superior to the ones in the M50. I hated every moment I had to use the M50 EVF and I pretty much enjoyed the RP EVF all the time.


----------



## puffo25 (Feb 9, 2022)

Stupid question. Currently I own a Canon R5 with several Canon RF lenses and I am very happy.
I am doing mostly astro (northern lights, star trails, milky way) , landscape, travel and documentary, street sceneries.

I might need a second camera body. The R6 might be the first option (smaller sensor, a bit better dynamic range in low light).... but no weather sealing, and couple of other options removed from the more expensive R5. So I am wondering if the R7 might fit btw the R5 and R6 or might be (as I suspect) a downgrade solution of the R6?


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 9, 2022)

puffo25 said:


> Stupid question. Currently I own a Canon R5 with several Canon RF lenses and I am very happy.
> I am doing mostly astro (northern lights, star trails, milky way) , landscape, travel and documentary, street sceneries.
> 
> I might need a second camera body. The R6 might be the first option (smaller sensor, a bit better dynamic range in low light).... but no weather sealing, and couple of other options removed from the more expensive R5. So I am wondering if the R7 might fit btw the R5 and R6 or might be (as I suspect) a downgrade solution of the R6?


Who told you the R6 isn't sealed? It is, maybe not the same as the 5 but it is.


----------



## tron (Feb 9, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> Really? I've been waiting for a *new* version, but I don't see any reason for it to be mirrorless. For what I do, EVFs provide all disadvantages and no advantages on stills. The only advantage is for shooting video.
> 
> What I actually want is a 7DIII with the 90D (or M6II? whatever that is) sensor.
> 
> Seems like that's impossible so I'm either going to have to learn to get used to an EVF (I've had, I think 7 compacts with EVFs and camcorders starting in the 80s, and they all suck) or use my 7DII for the rest of my life. Either that or they will have to make an EVF that doesn't suck.


Me too but since I could not have that I got the closest thing:

D500 with 500mm 5.6 PF

Later I added a D850.

Now a R7 with improved focusing (Quad pixel maybe? probably not...) and even a slightly improved 90D sensor could be a useful addition to the R series.

Also a 32.7 mp sensor would give a SQRT(32.5/17.5) = 1.36x advantage very close to a 1.4TC but without using one. Useful for those FL limited situations.

I used 17.5 in the above formula as this is R5's mpixels at 1.6 crop.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 9, 2022)

tron said:


> Me too but since I could not have that I got the closest thing:
> 
> D500 with 500mm 5.6 PF
> 
> ...


Can't stand Nikon gear and didn't want to have to replace the entire lens kit anyway.

I'll keep an eye on EVFs to see if anyone comes up with one that's usable but keep my 7DII for now. It's a pretty rock-solid camera.


----------



## tron (Feb 9, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> Can't stand Nikon gear and didn't want to have to replace the entire lens kit anyway.
> 
> I'll keep an eye on EVFs to see if anyone comes up with one that's usable but keep my 7DII for now. It's a pretty rock-solid camera.


I have kept my Canons (DSLRs and my mirrorless R5). The gear I mentioned is the only one I have and it is mostly dependable for birding (both static and BIF).


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 9, 2022)

tron said:


> I have kept my Canons (DSLRs and my mirrorless R5). The gear I mentioned is the only one I have and it is mostly dependable for birding (both static and BIF).


I'm always amazed at how many people use primes for birding and such. I shoot a lot of airplanes (full-scale and R/C) and can't imagine being stuck with a prime. I'm constantly zooming in and out as the object gets closer and farther away. I used to use a 70-200/2.8 with 2x TC and now use a 150-600C.


----------



## tron (Feb 9, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> I'm always amazed at how many people use primes for birding and such. I shoot a lot of airplanes (full-scale and R/C) and can't imagine being stuck with a prime. I'm constantly zooming in and out as the object gets closer and farther away. I used to use a 70-200/2.8 with 2x TC and now use a 150-600C.


I think airplanes are a different kind of birds 

Anyway we can't have everything. Your 150-600 weight a lot more than my 500PF. And D500 is better than 7DII.

I don't have zooming or super close focusing but my success ratio has gone up a lot! So I accept a prime's lens limitations.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> I'm always amazed at how many people use primes for birding and such. I shoot a lot of airplanes (full-scale and R/C) and can't imagine being stuck with a prime. I'm constantly zooming in and out as the object gets closer and farther away. I used to use a 70-200/2.8 with 2x TC and now use a 150-600C.


Many people shooting birds are focal length limited, so zooming out is rarely required. When using my 600/4 for birding (usually as an 840/5.6), I can count on one hand the number of times a subject has flown so close they overfilled the frame. This was one:




After screeching in the treetop perch for a while, the red tail took off and flew directly overhead, low enough that my shots clipped off both wings. But as I said, that's rare. A far more common reason I see people cite for using a zoom is being able to locate the subject at a wider focal length, then zoom in for the actual shot. I found that with a simple physical trick (ensuring the thumbscrew for the lens hood of the 600/4 is right at the top) and some practice, finding a subject in the VF is simple even at 1200mm.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 9, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Many people shooting birds are focal length limited, so zooming out is rarely required. When using my 600/4 for birding (usually as an 840/5.6), I can count on one hand the number of times a subject has flown so close they overfilled the frame. This was one:
> 
> View attachment 202449
> 
> ...


Well, with airplanes, it's so common that about 2/3rds of my shots are at less than 600mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> Well, with airplanes, it's so common that about 2/3rds of my shots are at less than 600mm.


Bigger wingspan...


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 9, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Bigger wingspan...


Not necessarily. I've taken shots of R/C airplanes as small as 10 inches in wingspan. As big as 23 feet too.


----------



## Otara (Feb 10, 2022)

Lee Jay said:


> Not necessarily. I've taken shots of R/C airplanes as small as 10 inches in wingspan. As big as 23 feet too.



Its possible that different strategies are needed to get close to birds.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Feb 12, 2022)

HOOK IT TO MY VEINS


----------



## researcher (Feb 12, 2022)

I'm sure the R7 will be great APSC camera (if that is what it is) with a bevy of features to help coax the hoardes of mere Rebel owners into the RF fold. I'm gonna assume it will have IBIS, dual pixel AF and all the other basics and allow me to use my EF-S lenses with an adapter.

One thing I really want: native webcam capability. Yes, Canon - do it, make it happen. Please.

Dorky, but seriously - I wanna be able to use this thing as a webcam with sound without lag.
I need all the help I can get looking presentable on Zoom meetings, and the pandemic taught me that my $29 clip on webcam just don't cut it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

unfocused said:


> As entertaining as it is (not) to repeat the same pedantic discussions for the millionth time on this forum, I wonder if those who are actually interested in an R7 might be willing to express their opinion. (@Michael Clark?)
> 
> If an R7 is essentially an R6 with a crop sensor and comes in at close to the price point of the R6 (give or take $100 or so) would such a body meet the needs/desires of those who want an R7? I am unfamiliar with the R6, but it seems like the main differences between the R5 and the R6 (aside from the sensors) are the dual SD slots and the mode dial. While a CFExpress slot might be preferred by some, I suspect Canon might opt for dual SD slots instead.
> 
> It strikes me that Canon will need to balance features and price point to reach a target that is affordable enough, yet feature rich enough, to attract sufficient buyers to make it profitable. I suspect that a mirrorless 90D (R90?) would not be attractive to those who want a crop sensor R. So I wonder if a crop sensor R6 with a sensor resolution in the 90D range, would tick enough boxes.



Just seeing this. 

I've already said more than once in various threads here that a 32MP APS-C camera similar to the R6 would be a camera I'd be very interested in even it it cost as much or even a tad bit more than the R6. Dual UHS-II SD slots wouldn't be that bad in terms of write speed compared to CFExpress. Canon would probably see that as a win-win from a marketing standpoint. Those who don't need blazing speed could use slower and cheaper UHS-I cards, while those who do need sustained speed shooting raw in the 10-12 fps range could pay more for fast UHS-II cards.

I've also said that what I expect we'll actually see offered by Canon is a mirrorless 90D with only one card slot, an AF system slightly inferior to the R5/R6, and the lower build quality and durability of the x0D series vs. the xD series. 

If that's the case it would be harder for me to pull the trigger on such a camera, even if it is priced significantly lower than the R6. 

Durability is a prime consideration for any camera I plan to use as my main sports camera. As you well know, it's the nature of shooting sports that you take a lot of frames and do it in all kinds of environmental conditions.

One reason I bought a Sigma 120-3200mm f/2.8 Sports before the 2021 fall sports season was to see how performs it on my 5D Mark IV compared to the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II on the 7D Mark II. The idea is that if I find that acceptable I'd go ahead and buy another 5D Mark IV (preferably a clean, low mileage used one) and use it when the 7D Mark II wears out or breaks and can't be fixed for a reasonable amount. So far the biggest negative for me is that the thing weighs as much as a bowling ball. 8+ pounds before you hang a camera body on it!


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> If Canon does a non-L zoom with that range I doubt we'll get a constant aperture. The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 always seemed to be out of character for Canon to me, like the EF-M 32mm f/1.4. Maybe that's how Canon keeps us guessing, by releasing a solid L-like non-L lens that doesn't work on the high end bodies.



Could it be that the 7D Mark II (far superior to the original 7D in terms of AF consistency, durability, and so much more usable for night/indoor sports with flicker reduction), all for only $1,800 when the 1D X was selling for $6,800 was as equally out of character for Canon as the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 was?


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> That might be true if the owner also owns a FF body. Otherwise, the R7 also would need a wide zoom, perhaps a 10-20 f/4 and a fast and small 30mm prime.
> 
> If Canon makes an R7, might they also introduce an M7 that is 90-95% common with the R7?



It's anecdotal to be sure, but almost every 7D Mark II owner I know/knew also owns/owned a 5-series FF body.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

entoman said:


> Exactly. I can't name any digital stills camera that doesn't also have at least basic functionality. Which is why I found cgc's comment odd.



I think the original comment was referring to a hybrid viewfinder, with both optical (rangefinder type?) and EVF overlay?


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Let's be clear that 7D users were quite happy with 18mp at the time and 7Dii are also happy with 20mp. Yes, they would like more and the 90D/M6ii showed a higher density sensor but "measly" is a poor choice of words
> I recall the chorus of A7siii fanboys saying that 12mp was more than sufficient for stills.



I'm still a 7D Mark II user. If Canon had offered a 32MP 7D Mark III at the same time it introduced the 90D and M6 Mark II, I'd have preordered it without question. I've never preordered a camera body before, having always waiting a few months to read quality reviews from those I trust.

Saying 7D Mark II users are "quite happy" with something when nothing better has been offered without also having to accept a few steps backwards in other areas is a bit disingenuous.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I7 Mpx is hardly measly, it’s pretty close to the 7DII, in fact it‘s only 8% less resolution. I had a 32 Mpx 90D for a while and had to use f/4 or wider to take advantage of its resolution. At the isos we use for bird photography, 800 or more, the noise ratchets the resolution down and I was getting as good images on the 5DSR, though in ideal conditions the 90 D is very nice. 50 Mpx FF is bit of a sweet spot in practical terms.



How fast does that 5Ds R go in burst mode, though? That's the other advantage of a higher pixel density APS-C body: faster frame rates without needing massive increases in processing power, buffer depth, and card write speed to process and record FF pixels you're not even going to use.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> The Df was no slouch in its time, it carried over a lot of tech from the D4. If you shot Nikon (glass) but had a penchant for Fuji design and dials galore as well, that was a good body for you. I have an acquaintance that still uses it.





Jasonmc89 said:


> Oh yeah I’m not denying it was a good camera. Just the design and decision to leave out video was the retro noveltyness.



It might have been a very good camera, but Nikon sold practically zilch of them.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> I am expecting a 24MP stacked sensor with no blackout that can push 30 or more FPS 14bit. That puts it well ahead of the R5 for wildlife unless you are just taking pictures of stationary animals that don't move. Though I do recall the 7D as being popular for all kinds of sports shooters so I fully expect the selling point will be high FPS at full bit depth with a blackout free fully electric (perhaps even shutter free) sensor.



So basically you expect an APS-C R3? Good luck with that.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> The Z9 gets around them by matching the read speed of a mechanical shutter. Stacked sensors like the A1 where already dreadfully close to hitting the magic number and by the R3 Mk2 and Z9 Mk2 we'll be surpassing the mechanical shutter I expect.
> 
> As for the product segmentation. The R7 doesn't have to be cheaper than the R6, the 7D and 7D Mk2 at least here were priced at or above the 6D and 6D Mk2 and I would argue the 7D was far more capable.
> 
> As for R3 sales for a start it isn't an R3. The R3 is full frame, in a 1-series body, has more buttons, the fancy touch joysticks, and eye control.



Au contraire mon frere! 

The 6D and 6D Mark II were introduced at $1,899 (2012) and $1,999 (2017), respectively. The 7D and 7D Mark II were $1,699 (2009) and $1,799 (2014) at launch. The 6D series only got significantly cheaper in 2019 when the EOS RP was introduced, putting extreme pressure on the price of the 6D Mark II. The 7D Mark II never really dropped much in price at all, other than a few very short limited time promotions here and there.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

entoman said:


> I appreciate your point, but think 50% of R5 price is a bit over-optimistic.
> 
> If the camera has the same build quality as the R5 (which if it's a sports/wildlife camera, it would need to have), and if it differs primarily in sensor size, the only real difference in manufacturing cost would be the physically smaller sensor. Countering that reduction in cost would be the cost of developing the camera and tooling. So I'd expect the cost to be around $3000.
> 
> If the camera is more affordable and designed more for the "Rebel" market, I'd expect the specification and build quality to be relatively poor and far from ideal for sports/wildlife, where cameras are regularly exposed to extreme weather and get more than their fair share of knocks and bangs.



I think you're missing the mark at both extremes. It likely won't be an R5 level camera, but it also won't be a Rebel level camera either. 

What I expect we'll see when it is announced is a mirrorless 90D. Maybe it will have two instead of one UHS-II SD card slots. But otherwise, it will be a slightly less durable body than the R5/R6, have a slightly inferior AF system to the R5/R6, be slower handling than the R5/R6, have a shallower buffer than the R5/R6, etc.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> With CF Express you wouldn't run into any buffering on a R7 with 24 MP 30 FPS. AF is just as reliable at 12 FPS as it is on 120 FPS depending on the camera, I just shot a bunch of tests with my Z9's 120 FPS mode and it happy produced over 2000 tack sharp images of my snakes striking things. The time to filter the images is a legit issue, I use Aftershot to help filter but really what we need is the Stacks feature from Aperture brought into Capture One so it can intelligently group a burst into one stack that you edit then promote the keeper candidates to the top.
> 
> And FYI I shoot wildlife at 15, 20, 30, and 120 FPS just now. Canon can and should let you pick a variable FPS for the R7.



CFExpress? More likely to have one (or maybe two if Canon decides to be extremely generous) UHS-II SD slot.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Using the USH-ii card:
> The R5 can record 5.5s of 20fps (110 shots/12bit) or 15s of 12fps (182 shots /14bit).
> The R6 can record 9s of 20fps (180 shots/12bit) or >158s of 12fps (>1900 shots /14bit)
> 
> ...



Photo Bunny is probably one of those fools who tried to use an UHS-II card in one of Canon's cameras with a UHS-I slot and didn't realize the high speed UHS-II card was defaulting to only 50MB/s when used in a UHS-I slot.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

Pixel said:


> What's most exciting about this camera is the 7D II was the first camera to introduce Dual-pixel AF. Could the R7 introduce Quad-Pixel AF to us?


 
The 70D had DP AF for over one year before the 7D Mark II was introduced.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

Deleted said:


> It is not always about cost. Many of us have big whites etc. Here in the UK, the older members of the birding community feat nothing of dropping £10k on a new scope each year, £3K on the latest bins etc. The same group do tend to walk a long way to see and photograph their subjects. Lugging around their scope, bins, two tripods, a 600mmF4 and a camera body is just a step too far. A lens like the 100-500 on a crop body handheld gets all the pixels on subject many desire with a substantially lighter load.
> 
> Compared to many in my local wildlife community I am relatively young and fit. I walk many miles each day photographing wildlife. While I occasionally use my FF setup , I prefer to travel light and react quickly. There are plenty of situations where the 100-400II I currently use with a 7D2 has allowed me to get a shot where I would have otherwise failed. Simple things like when laying in the grass shooting hares. Moving around with a 600 I would have spooked them. There have also been many times where the minimum focus distance of the 100-400 has meant I got the shot, that happened yesterday with hareswhen one came inside 3M away. Finally, here in the UK many reserves only allow you to shoot from their hides. These hides are often designed for birders, not togs. As such the windows are little more than slots too small for the girth of any big lens. Some I can only get the 100-400 through if I remove the hood. It is why lenses like the Nikon 500pf has become popular here.
> 
> ...



What is a "bin" in this context?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2022)

I love this forum. 

We have one set of people convinced this will be an R1 with an APS-C sensor, packed with new features and outperforming the R3 at a fraction of the cost. 

We have another set of people convinced this will be a cheap camera that will obviate the need for the EOS M line and Rebel/xxxD DSLRs, so Canon will just abandon those lines.

All we need is a set of people arguing for a pink Hello Kitty R7 and we’ll have covered all the bases. 

Well, except the one where the R7 is a Canon smartphone.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> What is a "bin" in this context?


BINoculars, given the context of birders and the mention of (spotting) scopes in the same sentence.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 15, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> What is a "bin" in this context?


binoculars?


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> BINoculars, given the context of birders and the mention of (spotting) scopes in the same sentence.



Thank you. My weekly trash pickup is in the morning and I still need to roll my "bin" about 300 feet to where the truck turns around at the edge of my property. That's all I could think of.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I love this forum.
> 
> We have one set of people convinced this will be an R1 with an APS-C sensor, packed with new features and outperforming the R3 at a fraction of the cost.
> 
> ...


 
There is a via media.

It might be a mirrorless 90D equivalent.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Thank you. My weekly trash pickup is in the morning and I still need to roll my "bin" about 300 feet to where the truck turns around at the edge of my property. That's all I could think of.


£3K would be a lot of money for a trash collection container.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Why did you contradict the statement that the 90D has a DLA of f/5.2, and more puzzling why didn't you say what it is if it isn't f/5.2. I did check it before posting with https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-90D.aspx (I usually check data before posting.) (Or hadn't you realised the discussion was about the sensor in the 90D?)
> 
> View attachment 202337



You did leave it a bit ambiguous as to whether it was an APS-C or FF sensor to anyone who been reading through the thread and didn't remember all of the previous comments.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

Deleted said:


> I have a 90D, well I own one I should say. My daughter borrowed it some time back.
> 
> If I ever do get my 90D out of the clutches of my youngest, it will replace my 80D as a macro body.





Write the 90D off. It is gone forever. You'll never have possession of it again.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

mehaue said:


> it's pretty obvious that there will be a high MP count full-frame sensor (and body) and a new aps-c sensor (and body) based on that - meaning if we see a high MP full full-frameframe sensor in the 70ish megapixel range that would translate to a 43ish megapixel aps-c sensor. It's how they manufacture chips, depending on the yield of the material you can also use faulty full-frame sensors and use them as aps-c sensors if they have quality issues in the areas not present in aps-c format.
> There is also a high chance that the aps-c camera (r7) will have 8k recording capabilities due to its sensor size - of course with all the usual canon cripple to protect the cinema line, but that will still be an amazing camera not only for birding but also for macro work - I'm intrigued!


 
A 70(ish) MP FF camera translates to a 27(ish) MP APS-C camera with the same pixel pitch. A 43 MP APS-C camera would be a 110 MP FF camera with the same pixel pitch.

You're reducing both the height and the width of the sensor by a factor of 1.6X. 

1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

twoheadedboy said:


> Except EVF gives you the real lens aperture wide open and OVF does not. Seeing what you see with your eyes through the camera is less important for photo composition than seeing what the camera does, because the camera is what makes the photo.


 
Seeing something when it actually is happening is more important for sports/action than seeing it a millisecond or two after it happens, too.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Depth of field resides solely within the lens and distance to subject. Since depth of field is sensor independent, I don't like to use the term equivalence for depth of field, because people think it has something to do with the sensor, which it does not.



Not true. Depth of field relies on two factors: entrance pupil and total magnification.

Magnification includes:
1) subject distance
2) Focal length
3) enlargement ratio (which is dependent upon both sensor size and display size)
4) viewing distance

You can take the same exact image file and display it at two different sizes and the depth of field for each display size will be different when both are viewed from the same distance.

Or you can take the same displayed photo and observe it at two different distances. The DoF will be greater for the further observation than the nearer observation (assuming the lens isn't so blurry that no details are observable at even very close distances).


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> Equivalence dictates you apply a factor, everybody calls it a crop factor, to focal length, *and* aperture, *and* iso. A crop factor can be a positive or negative value depending on if you are going up or down in sensor size. Cropping is exactly the same as using a smaller sensor. Ergo, if you crop all else being equal you change DoF. All else being equal includes, by definition, the same *sized *output, not scaled output.



A crop factor will always be a positive value. 

For smaller sensors than the baseline the crop factor will be greater than 1.0

For sensors larger than the baseline the crop factor will be a positive value less than 1.0


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 15, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Could it be that the 7D Mark II (far superior to the original 7D in terms of AF consistency, durability, and so much more usable for night/indoor sports with flicker reduction), all for only $1,800 when the 1D X was selling for $6,800 was as equally out of character for Canon as the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 was?


So Canon seems to have a history of releasing one-off pleasant surprises in various categories, so "out of character" wouldn't be a good description. Maybe 'sporadic' is a better label for such things.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

lote82 said:


> I don't think so. Maybe sports shooters aren't interested in wide angle lenses. But as a wildlife photographer it does make sense to have a wide angle lens with you. If you go hiking you are already packed with (not only but mostly) heavy tele-lenses. Having only one small and light wide angle lens (especially Aps-c only) can give you additional landscape shots while hiking. If you ask me landscape is part of "wildlife" shooting. Maybe it's only me, but I would never take an additional ff body with ff wide angle lens with me, at least for hiking.



I'm a sports shooter and I'm definitely interested in wide angle lenses. It's just that I have enough sense to pair the telephoto lens with the crop body and the wider angle lenses with the FF body, instead of the opposite.

For example:

5D Mark IV + 24-105mm = 84°-23.3° diagonal AoV
7D Mark II + 70-200mm = 21.9°-7.7° diagonal AoV

So pretty much continuous coverage from 84° to 7.7° (FF equivalent of 24-320mm) with no overlap using only two cameras.

If I swap that, I'm more limited to

7D Mark II + 24-105mm = 57°-14.6° diagonal AoV
5D Mark IV + 70-200mm = 34°-12° diagonal AoV

Now I've only got coverage from 57° to 12° (FF equivalent of 38-200mm) with a lot of overlap.

Or even three bodies:

7D Mark II + 120-300mm f/2.8 (192-480mm FF AoV)
5D Mark IV + 70-200mm f/2.8
5D Mark III + 24-70mm f/2.8

Now I've got the FF equivalent AoV of 24mm-480mm (with overlap only between 192mm and 200mm _if_ the 120-300mm is an honest 120mm at widest AoV), all at f/2.8 with only three cameras (and one lens that weighs as much as a bowling ball). The big lens is on the monopod and the other two cameras are on each side of my dual harness.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Which brings me to another point about Canon's fullframe lenses for both EF and RF mount. They totally lack something between budget and L-lenses when it comes to wideangle zooms and normal-zooms. USM zooms that are close or comparable to L-lens optical performance, but in a more lightweight variable-aperture build would be much more appealing to me, but totally lacks in Canon's lineup. Yes, I know it won't completely solve my weight problem, that's why I go for APS-C. But it would still make fullframe look much more appealing to me.



They're called primes. 

The EF35mm f/2 IS gives better IQ and is one stop faster for $600 than the RF or EF 24-70/2.8 L lenses for well north of $2,000. At f/2 it kicks the snot out of the RF 24-70/2.8 at 35mm f/2.8 in the corners.

Compared to any zoom in Canon's EF or RF lineup that includes 16mm @ f/2.8, the RF 16mm f/2.8 competes very well at only $299. It's not quite as good as the $2,400 RF 15-35mm f/2.8, but it's not that far behind it, either.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 15, 2022)

puffo25 said:


> Stupid question. Currently I own a Canon R5 with several Canon RF lenses and I am very happy.
> I am doing mostly astro (northern lights, star trails, milky way) , landscape, travel and documentary, street sceneries.
> 
> I might need a second camera body. The R6 might be the first option (smaller sensor, a bit better dynamic range in low light).... but no weather sealing, and couple of other options removed from the more expensive R5. So I am wondering if the R7 might fit btw the R5 and R6 or might be (as I suspect) a downgrade solution of the R6?


 The R5 and R6 are both FF sensors. They're the same size. 36mm x 24mm.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 15, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> A crop factor will always be a positive value.
> 
> For smaller sensors than the baseline the crop factor will be greater than 1.0
> 
> For sensors larger than the baseline the crop factor will be a positive value less than 1.0


Correct. And what I meant to express but, word salad...


----------



## jd7 (Feb 15, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Not true. Depth of field relies on two factors: entrance pupil and total magnification.
> 
> Magnification includes:
> 1) subject distance
> ...


Leaving aside enlargement ration and viewing distance, and to be picky, I thought DOF was (essentially) dependent on entrance pupil and subject distance or f-stop (relative aperture) and magnification. Have I got that wrong?


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Feb 15, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> It might have been a very good camera, but Nikon sold practically zilch of them.


Because they left out video..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2022)

jd7 said:


> Leaving aside enlargement ration and viewing distance, and to be picky, I thought DOF was (essentially) dependent on entrance pupil and subject distance or f-stop (relative aperture) and magnification. Have I got that wrong?


Leaving aside the +, does 2 2=4 make any sense?

Magnification is the amount of enlargement applied to the image between the size at which it is captured and the size at which it is viewed. Therefore, enlargement ratio and viewing distance are actually part of magnification – you can't 'leave them aside'.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 15, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Leaving aside the +, does 2 2=4 make any sense?
> 
> Magnification is the amount of enlargement applied to the image between the size at which it is captured and the size at which it is viewed. Therefore, enlargement ratio and viewing distance are actually part of magnification – you can't 'leave them aside'.


Leaving aside things and only discussing a part of a principle seem to be a common trait here as of late. 

"Well, if I can't be right, I want to be part right"...is that it?


----------



## lote82 (Feb 15, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> I'm a sports shooter and I'm definitely interested in wide angle lenses. It's just that I have enough sense to pair the telephoto lens with the crop body and the wider angle lenses with the FF body, instead of the opposite.
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...


As I said... Maybe(!) for sports shooters (which I'm not!) Aps-c(!!) wide angle lenses don't make sense. But for hiking purposes it does perfectly make sense... At least if you want a good compromise between wide angle, reach and weight!


----------



## unfocused (Feb 15, 2022)

lote82 said:


> As I said... Maybe(!) for sports shooters (which I'm not!) Aps-c(!!) wide angle lenses don't make sense. But for hiking purposes it does perfectly make sense... At least if you want a good compromise between wide angle, reach and weight!


It seems like the RF 16 f2.8 would be a very useful lens for APS-C. Compact, tiny, cheap, fast, just over 24mm and no edge vignetting in crop mode.


----------



## jd7 (Feb 15, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Leaving aside the +, does 2 2=4 make any sense?
> 
> Magnification is the amount of enlargement applied to the image between the size at which it is captured and the size at which it is viewed. Therefore, enlargement ratio and viewing distance are actually part of magnification – you can't 'leave them aside'.


When I referred to magnification, I was thinking about reproduction ratio (as discussed on various websites such as https://photographylife.com/what-is-magnification, ie the same sort of magnification as when we talk about a lens having a particular maximimum magnification) and considering enlargement and viewing distance separately because (as you say in relation to enlargement) they come into play after the image is captured. Re-reading Michael Clark's email now, I can see he was referring to magnification in the same sense you are, where enlargement and viewing distance are inherent elements of magnification.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 16, 2022)

jd7 said:


> Leaving aside enlargement ration and viewing distance, and to be picky, I thought DOF was (essentially) dependent on entrance pupil and subject distance or f-stop (relative aperture) and magnification. Have I got that wrong?



Depth of field is an illusion. Though, as Einstein might say, it's a rather persistent one.

There is only a single distance that is in sharpest focus. Everything closer or further from that distance is blurry to one degree or another. What we describe as the depth of field of an image is the total distance from in front of to behind the actual focus distance that looks just as sharp to our eyes as things at the actual focus distance.

There's no magic barrier at which everything closer to the focus distance is perfectly sharp and everything further is hopelessly blurry. It's a gradual progression from sharper to blurrier. The size of the entrance pupil (the effective aperture, if you insist on using that less precise term) affects how far from the things in focus other things on either side of the focus distance have to be to get blurry enough for us to perceive them as blurry.

Our perception is based on the size of the blur as it is projected by our corneas onto our retinas. If it's smaller than the limits of our perception, we see it as a sharp point. If it's larger than the limits of our perception we see it as an area of blur.

The two things that affect how far from the actual focus distance things can be and still be perceived by our eyes as sharp in a photo are the size of the lens' entrance pupil and TOTAL magnification, which is measured between the real life size of the things captured in the photo and the size of those things projected onto our retinas.

Subject distance is one factor in magnification.

How far the subject is from the camera affects how large the subject will be in the image projected by the lens onto the sensor or film. If the subject is 1/100 life size in the projected image that's a magnification ratio of 0.01X. If the subject is life size in the projected image, that's a magnification ratio of 1.0X. If the subject is one-third actual size in the projected image that's a magnification ratio of 0.33X.

It doesn't matter if the focal length is 100mm and the distance is 10m, or if the focal length is 200mm and the distance is 20m, the size of the subject on the projected image will be the same in both cases because the doubling in focal length is countered by the doubling in distance. Both factors combine to determine how large the the subject is as projected on the sensor.

Focal length is also one factor in magnification.

So are display size and viewing distance.

Why? Because we don't usually view images at the same size they are projected onto a camera's sensor or film. We enlarge them significantly. When we enlarge the image, we also enlarge to size of any blur in the image. The larger blur will be more easily perceived as blur by our eyes unless we also increase the viewing distance by the same factor. If we enlarge a 135 format negative to view the printed positive at 8x12 inches, we've enlarged by a factor of 8.5X. If we back up from one foot to 8.5 feet to view the image, then the amount of blur in the 8X12 inch print will look the same as the amount of blur in 36x24mm print viewed at one foot. But we don't usually view 8x12" prints at a distance of 8.5 feet. We usually view them at a distance of about one foot. Thus the blur in the print can be seen as 8.5X larger in the 8x12" print than in the contact print from the negative. (That is, unless we lean even closer and use a magnifying glass when viewing our contact sheet with all the life sized negatives printed on them.)

The total magnification is the only one that really matters, because all of those things (distance, FL, sensor size/enlargement ratio/display size, and viewing distance) combined determine how large the subject is in the image projected by the viewer's cornea onto the viewer's retina. Ultimately it is how large the parts of an image are on the viewer's retina that count.

This is because whether blur is perceived as blur or perceived as a single point is determined by how many seconds of arc that blur occupies in the viewer's vision.

This is easy enough to test. The next time you are looking at images from a shoot, try and determine which ones have the "sharpest" subjects looking only at the "filmstrip" sized thumbnails. Then open each image displayed in a main window with the thumbnails in a "filmstrip" underneath or beside the viewing window and look again. Then view each image at 100% (1 screen pixel equals one image pixel). It will be obvious to you that things that look sharp at postage stamp sizes don't always look sharp at post card sizes, and even things that look sharp at post card sizes don't all look sharp at poster board sizes when all three sizes are viewed from the same distance.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 16, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Leaving aside the +, does 2 2=4 make any sense?
> 
> Magnification is the amount of enlargement applied to the image between the size at which it is captured and the size at which it is viewed. Therefore, enlargement ratio and viewing distance are actually part of magnification – you can't 'leave them aside'.



Total magnification includes everything that influences the angular size of the subject on the viewer's retina:

Subject distance 
Focal length
enlargement ratio
viewing distance


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 16, 2022)

lote82 said:


> As I said... Maybe(!) for sports shooters (which I'm not!) Aps-c(!!) wide angle lenses don't make sense. But for hiking purposes it does perfectly make sense... At least if you want a good compromise between wide angle, reach and weight!



What you actually said was:

"Maybe sports shooters aren't interested in wide angle lenses."

What I said in reply was:

"I'm a sports shooter and I'm definitely interested in wide angle lenses."

But the vast majority of us who are interested in WA lenses aren't interested in using them on APS-C bodies. We've got FF bodies to maximize the AoV provided by our WA lenses and we might (or might not) have cropped bodies to maximize the "reach" of our telephoto lenses, or to reduce the size/weight/cost of a specific amount of "reach".

None of us, regardless of what sensor size(s) we are using, have time to change lenses between the instant an athlete running straight towards us transitions from further than about 15-20 yards to closer than 15-20 yards from our shooting position. We don't really even have time to switch which camera we're shooting with. So we begin reaching for the "wide" body as soon as we take the last shot with the "long" body and move our right hand off the shutter button and controls, and we often start shooting even before we have time to raise the viewfinder to eye level.

My friend Gary Cosby, Jr. has had hard news photos published on the front page of the New York Times. He's had an entire photo project printed in ESPN The Magazine. He's now the chief (only one left) photographer at the Tuscaloosa News, which is owned by Gannett. A large percentage of his current assignments are pushing images from University of Alabama athletic events to Gannett's wire services. I often see him on TV coverage of Alabama football games.

Back in about 2015 he got several images, published in his coverage of a high school game I was also at, between the time the ball was batted away by a defender and the receiver, defenders, and the ball hit the turf. At the time he was shooting this sequence, he was also rising up off his knees to get out of the way. He still didn't have the second body all the way up to his eye when the play was over. It was roughly 1.1 seconds, based on the EXIF sub-second field, between my first and last frames below. (Don't be too tough on Gary's images in terms of color. The flicker in that stadium is horrible and he was shooting straight to JPEG - his filing deadline was less than two hours after the end of the first half when this took place and there was no usable WiFi anywhere nearby back then - with a company issued Nikon that didn't have any kind of flicker reduction.)










Apologies for the cropped and downsized blurry images. I was about 30 yards away having just finished taking pictures of the band warming up for their halftime show when I saw the play, a 50+ yard pass, developing towards the other side of the field.

You can see me in this frame he grabbed a split-second before my last frame above.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 16, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> What you actually said was:
> 
> "Maybe sports shooters aren't interested in wide angle lenses."
> 
> ...


Wow - that shows what a pro can do. Remarkable reflexes and muscle memory.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 16, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Wow - that shows what a pro can do. Remarkable reflexes and muscle memory.



I saw him do that nearly countless times over the years he worked in my hometown. More often than not he nailed the shots. I used to kid him that Weegee was his hero.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 16, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Wow - that shows what a pro can do. Remarkable reflexes and muscle memory.



I get a few doing that every now and then, but I'm still a Padawan compared to Coz.


----------



## BPhoto06 (Feb 18, 2022)

I would absolutely love an EOS R Mark 2. It would be a brilliant camera for so many people. Upgrade the AF, keep the sensor around 30MP (Full Frame) as that is the sweet spot between 20 and 45MP. Even with no ibis it would still be good. Would be brilliant for us landscape photographers!


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 20, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Get thineself to ye olde camera store post haste! The R5/6 evf's are much improved over the older tech..I was a mirrorless holdout for my main body until I tried them and I'm now sold.


I just tried an R6. Same old problems - blurry while panning, blown brights, laggy. Less crushed blacks though.

I fiddled with things and found that the EVF uses the same shutter speed as the final exposure will. This is a big part of the blurry while panning issue. It got better when I set it to a faster shutter speed (1/640 vs 1/125) but then the view was dark because ISO was pegged, in the brightly-lit store.

I'd still find it unusable for most of what I do.

Need to improve another order of magnitude at least.


----------



## Chig (Mar 25, 2022)

No sign of any announcement yet and March is nearly over


----------



## bergstrom (Mar 26, 2022)

Chig said:


> No sign of any announcement yet and March is nearly over



Any minute now!

<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/tXL4FHPSnVJ0A" width="480" height="317" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="



">via GIPHY</a></p>


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2022)

The announcement is scheduled for March 32nd. AKA April 1st.


----------



## masterpix (Jul 2, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


That only give me the better excuse to replace my R5 after three (four) years of wonderful service..


----------



## masterpix (Jul 2, 2022)

kaihp said:


> And the 7D crowd goes ballistic in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... now


Not really, most of the 7D "crowd" bought the R6 or the R5 already. Although the R7 is the real equivalent R camera.


----------



## lote82 (Jul 2, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The announcement is scheduled for March 32nd. AKA April 1st.


That didn't age well!


----------

